■J. Y 
,0 o^ 



0' 



Kn ,vV 



,N^' 



v^^ ''^^ 



4^ 't<. 



^^^ v^' 



'^, .^' 



u ,^\^" 






>x "^"^ 


-^ -^o 






#'^ 




-. .^ 


^^^ 





^^ V' 



.V^- S^^^'V C 



o>^ 



N^" 






■■•'> .^^' 



■.■i' -Si 



V v^^ 



.0 - 



^0 






^^ V'^ 



^/. ,vV 



"^y- V^" 



■H '^.' 



^^^ 



c ^^i 



THE 



REVIEWERS REVIEWED 



A SUPPLEMENT TO THE "WAR BETWEEN 
THE STATES," ETC., 



WITH 



AN APPENDIX IN EEVIEW OF '' BECONSTBUCTION;' 
SO CALLED. 



BY 

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 






NEW YORK: 
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 

549 & 651 BROADWAY. 
1872. 



Enteeed, according to act of Congress, in the year 1872, by 

ALEXAKDEE H. STEPHENS, 

In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 



^. 



TO 



ADAM L. ALEXANDER, 

The only survivor of my early henefaetors, a gentleman dis- 
tinguished for integrity^ l^iaty^ iirlanity, and high culture^ in 
all that pertains to Art, Science, and Literature, this volume 
is most respectfully and gratefully inscribed, with a fervent 
wish that his days may yet he continued for many years to 
come, in the enjoyment of that " otium cum dignitate " which 
always imparts a hallowing charm to the crowning glory of a 
long, happy , prosperous, and well-spent life. 



Alexander H. Stephens. 

-LE, Ga., ) 

January 1, 1872. 



Liberty Hall, Crawfordville, Ga., ) 



PKEFACE. 



The two volumes of the " Constitutional Yiew of tlie Late 
"War Between the States," etc., have been before the public 
nearly two years. The object of the writer of that work was, 
with perfect impartiality, and without any of the bias or preju- 
dice which usually accompanies passion, from any cause what- 
ever, to vindicate the truth of history, that posterity may have 
a clear perception and understanding of those principles of 
Local Self-Government, and of Federative Union, upon which 
the Free Institutions of the United States were founded and 
established by the Fathers; and upon the maintenance of 
which alone he believes these Institutions can be preserved 
and perpetuated. 

Since the publication of the work, he has closely watched 
the criticisms which have been made upon it from all quarters, 
to sec to what extent any attempt would be made to assail the 
facts therein set forth, or the positions therein assumed. He 
did not expect that a work so directly at issue, in matters of 
public record, with the current histories of the day, would es- 
cape criticism and assault. In this he has not been disap- 
pointed. Attacks have been made from several high quarters. 

It is his object, in this volume, to give to the public of the 
present generation, and to leave for all coming generations, in 
an induring form, his answer to each one of these attacks which 
have come to his notice from a source deserving attention. 



Q PREFACE. 

Each assailant has been treated separately and dealt fau-ly by, 
as the author believes. AYhatever opinion may be entertained 
as to results, it is not thought by him that any one will ven- 
ture to say, that the adversary or objector in any of the several 
cases has not been squarely met, and upon his own grounds. 

It is, therefore, left for an enlightened and just public, now 
and hereafter, to determine whether any successful assault has 
as yet been made upon what are claimed in the work to be 
irrefutable truths and irresistible conclusions. It is also left 
for the same public to determine whether the doctrines of the 
two volumes, as therein set forth, and herein maintained, are 
in accordance with the essential principles of Public Liberty 
taught by the Founders of our Federal Republic, or are 
of a character so "j)e)'mcious" that they should be "stip- 
p'essed^'' according to the public announcement of Mr. At- 
torney-General Ackerman. 

'■^AudLi alteram partemJ'* 

^^ Prove all things; hold fast that which is goody 

These are maxims which, throughout these discussions, have 
governed the action of the 

AXJTHOE. 



CONTENTS. 



ARTICLE I. 

rAoa 

Mr. Stephens' Retietv of Dr. A. T. Bledsoe's Review of the " War Between 



THE States," etc., 



ARTICLE II. 

I. — Mr. Stephens' Reply to Hon. S. S. Nicholas, of Kentucky, ... 39 

n. — Rejoinder of Judge Nicholas, 50 

in. — Mr. Stephens' Sur-rejoinder to Judge Nicholas, 53 

ARTICLE III. 

The Curtis Contboverst, or Mr. Webster's Modified Views, . . 61 

I.— Hon. George T. Curtis' Review of the Work, 61 

II.— Mr. Stephens' Reply, 91 

III. — Rejoinder of Mr. Curtis, 114 

IV. — Sur-rejoinder of Mr. Stephens, 123 

ARTICLE IV. 

Mr. Stephens' Reply to Hon. Horace Greeley's Criticism on the Work, . 137 

ARTICLE V. . 

The Subject op the Election of Mr. Davis to the Presidency of the Con- 
federate States, 147 

I. — Letter of Hon. Alexander M. Clayton, of Mississippi, criticising Mr. 

Stephens' Statement concerning it, 147 

n. — Reply of Mr. Stephens, with his Statement upon the Subject, . . 149 

in, — Letter of Hon. Martin J. Crawford upon the same Subject, . . . 151 



8 CONTENTS. 

ARTICLE VI. 



FAOB 



Confederate Inactivity after the first Battle op Manassas, 1861. — 

Criticism of Hon. E. Barksdale, of Mississippi, on this point, . 155 

I. Editorial of the Augusta (Ga.) ComiilutionaUst, 31st July, 1870, by 

J. R. Randall: with Letters from President Davis and General 

Joseph E. Johnston, 155 

n. — Letters referred to by Mr. Randall, 151 

ni. — The interesting Paper referred to by Mr. Randall, .... 162 
rV. — Conclusion of Mr. Randall's Editorial in which the Foregoing Letters 

and Paper had been incorporated, 167 

Y. — Mr. Stephens' Rejoinder to Mr. Barksdale's Reply to his First Letter, 169 

VI. — Mr. Barksdale's Sur-rejoinder, 171 

VIL— Mr. Stephens' Letter m Rebuttal, ....... 173 

ARTICLE VII. 

The Battle op Olustee, ok Ocean Pond, 177 

I. — Editorial of the Savannah Republican, July, 1870, on the Subject, . 177 
II.^Letter of Mr. Stephens (referred to) on the same Subject, . . 177 

ARTICLE VIII. 
The Forged Speech, •. • . 180 

I. — Letter of Mr. Stephens on this Subject, 180 

ARTICLE IX. 

Reply of Mr. Stephens to Mr. Attorney-General Akerman's Denuncia- 
tions OF the "Work, 188 

ARTICLE X. 

I.— Reply of Mr. Stephens to Criticism of the Atlanta (Ga.) "New Era," . 196 

n.— Rejoinder of the " New Era," 207 

III.— Mr. Stephens' Sur-rejoinder to the " New Era," 214 

APPENDIX. 

L — Speech of Hon. Linton Stephens, in Macon, Georgia, on the " Recon- 
struction Measures," and the "Enforcement Act" of 1870, deliv- 
ered 23d of January, 1871, 227 

n. — Speech of Ilon. Linton Stephens, at the City Hall in Augusta, Ga., on 

the night of the 18th of February, 1871, 243 

IIL — Letter of Ex-Govemor Charles J. Jenkins to His Excellency James M. 

Smith, Present Governor of Georgia, 253 

General Analytical Index, 271 



THE EEYIEWEES REVIEWED. 



AETICLE I. 

ME. STEPHENS' BEVIEW OF DR. A. T. BLEDSOE'S EEVIEW OF 
TEE " WAR BETWEEN THE STATES," ETC. 



Liberty IIall, 
Crawfordville, Georgia, October 22, 1868 



J 



Messrs. Editors of the Statesman, Baltimore, 2fari/Ia7id : 

Gentlemen: — In the Leader of the third instant (which 
journal has since been merged into yours), there is an article 
of a character to justify some notice from me ; otherwise, silence 
might be construed into assent. The subject is of too much 
importance, not to me personally, but to the public interests 
involved in the questions, for me to allow such an inference 
to be drawn. 

The article alluded to is the one under the head of Book 
Notices. In this, after referring to Tlie Southern Beview for 
October of this year, and the high merits of that Quarterly, 
etc., special attention is called to the paper entitled "Alex- 
ander II. Stephens on the War," and it then goes to say : 

" The writer accuses Mr. Stephens of book-making, and cites the great 
amount of irrelevant matter which encumbers the volume. He shows the 
inconsistency of complaining of the want of space, and at the same time 
crowding his pages with such documents as the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United 
States, etc., and with almost entire Congressional and other speeches. 
He condemns also the cold-bloodedness with which he charges the his- 
tory is written, and insists that the true historian of a passionate period 
must have passion enough to enable him to sympathize with the tierce 



10 THE REVIEWEES EEVIEWED. 

energies he records. He denies that the protracted struggle through 
which we have just passed arose from a mere conflict of political ideas, 
and shows that that conflict existed from the foundation of the govern- 
ment. The Reviewer insists, on the contrary, that the revolution was the 
product of a 'multitude of converging causes,' such as the destruction 
of the balance of power, sectional legislation, formation of a geograph- 
ical faction, the disregard of the checks of the Constitution, the unfair 
treatment of the slavery question, and the violent tone with which the 
question of Secession was discussed at the North. He also convicts Sir. 
Stephens, by citation from his own speeches, of inconsistency on the sub- 
ject of Secession, showing that the North did not misrepresent him when 
it quoted him as an opponent of that method of righting the wrongs of 
the South. He also draws a very clear distinction between the right of 
Revolution and that of Secession, as entirely distinct, though lilr. Stephens 
has confounded them." 

From this it appears, that the author of this article in the 
Leader is of opinion that I, in the first volume of the " Con- 
stitutional Yieio of the Late War,''^ etc., had confounded the 
right of Secession with the right of Eevolution, while the 
Keviewer referred to has drawn a very clear distinction be- 
tween the two ; and, moreover, that the Reviewer, besides 
several other rather extraordinary feats, has actually convicted 
me of inconsistency upon the subject of the right of Secession, 
and that, too, most strangely, by showing that the North did 
not murepresent me when it quoted me as an op2>onent of that 
method of Hghting the lorongs of the South. This is the judg- 
ment he has given to the world. Whether it is founded barely 
upon the ex parte statement of the Eeviewer, and his pre- 
tended extracts from the book and speeches referred to, or 
upon a full investigation and examination, by himself, of the 
facts and merits of the points made by the Eeviewer, does 
not appear. But, be that as it may, I very respectfully appeal 
from that judgment, and ask the privilege, through the columns 
of the Statesman, the successor of the Leader , to present these 
facts and points to your readers ; that the whole case, with its 
merits, on both sides, may be properly submitted to the decision 
of a higher tribunal. 

That Dr. Bledsoe, the Editor of Ths Southern Beview 
(who, I take it for granted, is tlie writer), did, in the paper 



REVIEW OF DK. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 11 

referred to, put forth tlie utmost of his powers in an endeavor 
to convict me of an inconsistency npon the subject of Seces- 
sion, is quite apparent from his verv labored effort. Indeed, 
his whole review of the book, which he had before him, is m:mi- 
festly directed much more against the author than against the 
book itselt\ or the doctrines and principles it maintains. At 
the outset, it is true, there is somethmg about it, and "the 
mysterious Company*" bj which it is issued, that he does not 
Hke. But, as he advances, it appears to him to have some ot' 
the merits of '* a real book." " The one living element, the 
one vital principle, which constitutes it a real book," says he, 
'"is the great and imperishable truth, that the Government of 
the United States was Federal, and not National, in its ori- 
gin.'' " This great truth is, we tlimk, fully and imanswerably 
established by Mr. Stephens.'' (Page 2S0.) In the same mood, 
in another place, he says: — ""W"e hail it, then, as a real thing, 
as a veritable luminary in the political heavens. ]^ot as a star 
of the first magnitude, however,'' etc. (Page 254:.) In his 
varying lancy, this " veritable luminary " soon becomes nothing 
but " a comet " with " an immense train," etc. 

Then, suddenly, as if under the baleful influence of a real 
comet (which, according to the opinions o1^ many, less imagi- 
native than this learned Doctor of Laws, is, always, a portent 
of evil, scattering disorders, pestilence, and wars among man- 
kind, in its course), he seems to lose his self-possession, and 
bursts forth into a furious rage, tm-ning upon the author, assail- 
ing his want of passion, or coM-bloodcd/wss, and his various 
other short-comings, fancied pretensions, and inconsistencies. 
In this line of criticism, more evidences of /lot-hloodedfiens and 
indiscretion, which usually go together in writing, as in all 
things else, are rarely to be found compressed in a like num- 
ber of fifty-one pages, than this self-same J^cview contains. 
With all this sort of personal tirade, of course, it is not my 
purpose now, or at any time, to trouble you or annoy your 
readers, further than is absolutely necessary to my own vindi- 
cation against his perversions, and the judgment thus rendered 
on them. My object In this notice is to deal mainly witli the 
facts of the case involved in the Leader's presentation of the 



12 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

merits of the paper in question, and for tlie purpose, mainly, 
of correcting some of the numerous misrepresentations, with 
which this article of The Southern Beview abounds, on the 
points embraced in that presentation. 

In the prosecution of this design, allow me, then, in the 
first place, upon the subject of inconsistency on the subject 
of Secession, to say that Dr. Bledsoe does not attempt to 
accomplish his object, in this particulai*, in the manner, and 
on the point, as stated in the Leader. He makes no citations 
from my speeches to show that I was not misrepresented at 
the N'orth, when I was quoted as being an opponent of that 
method of righting the wrongs of the South. This was more 
than even he attempted. Nothing connected with my public 
life is more generally known North as well as South, than 
that I did oppose that method of redressing what I considered 
great wrongs to the Southern States of the Union. 

His object was to conyict me of inconsistency upon the 
Tight of a State to adopt this mode of redress, if she, in her 
sovereign character, chose to adopt it. The argument of the 
book maintains this right, and vindicates the justifiableness 
of the measure as matter of sovereign rights though as mat- 
ter of public 2^olicy it might have been injudicious, and un- 
wise, as I held it to be at the time. Many things may be 
legally and morally right in themselves, which, nevertheless, 
may not be either wise or expedient in public as well as in 
private affairs. This is the doctrine of the book on this ques- 
tion, and Dr. Bledsoe quotes from the report of a speech made 
by me, 14th November, 18(?0 (known as my "Union Speech"), 
to show that I did not then believe in this sovereign right of 
Secession ; but, on the contrary, denied it ! This is the incon- 
sistency that he endeavored to show, and which he claims that 
he has established. He maintains that I denied this right in 
tliat speech. I maintain that I did not, but fully recognized 
the same principles in it, on this question, which are set forth 
in the book. This is the issue betweeji us. 

To enable that tribunal, to which I appeal, more clearly 
and fully to understand the merits of both sides, it is proper 
that the principles set forth in the " Comtitutional View of 



REVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 13 

the Late War letween tJie States^'' etc., on this subject, slioiild 
first be presented. These are as follows : 

" Now, as to the riglitfulncss of the State thus resuming her sovereign 
powers. In doing it she seceded from that Union, to which, in the lan- 
guage of Mr. Jefferson, as well as General Washington, she had acceded as 
a sovereign State. She repealed her ordinance by which she ratified and 
agreed to the Constitution and became a party to the Compact under it. 
She declared herself no longer bound by that Compact, and dissolved her 
alliance with the other parties to it. The Constitution of the United 
States, and the laws passed in pursuance of it, were no longer the supreme 
law of the people of Georgia, any more than the treaty with France was 
the supreme law of both countries after its abrogation, in 1798, by the 
same rightful authority which had made it in the beginning. In answer 
to your question, whether she could do this without a breach of her 
solemn obligations, under the Compact, I give this full and direct answer : 
She had a perfect right so to do, subject to no authority but the great 
moral law which governs the intercourse between Independent Sovereign 
Powers, Peoples, or Nations. Her action was subject to the authority of 
that law, and none other. It is the inherent right of Nations, subject to 
this law alone, to disregard the obligations of Compacts of all sorts, by 
declaring themselves no longer bound in any way by them. This, by 
universal consent, may be rightfully done when there has been a breach 
of the Compact by the other party or parties. It was on this principle 
that the United States abrogated their treaty with France, in 1798. The 
justifiableness of the act depends, in every instance, upon the circum- 
stances of the case. The general rule is, if all the other States — the 
parties to the Confederation — faithfully comply with their obligations, 
under the Compact of Union, no State would be morally justified in with- 
drawing from a Union so formed, unless it were necessary for her own 
preservation. Self-preservation is the first law of nature, with States or 
Nations, as it is with individuals. 

" But in this case the breach of plighted faith was not on the part of 
Georgia, or those States which withdrew, or attempted to withdraw, 
from the Union. Thirteen of their Confederates had openly and avowedly 
disregarded their obligations under that clause of the Constitution which 
covenanted for the rendition of fugitives from service, to say nothing of 
the acts of several of them, in a like open and palpable breach of faith, 
in the matter of the rendition of fugitives from justice. These are facts I 
about which there can be no dispute. Then, by universal law, as recog- 
nized by all Nations, savage as well as civilized, the Compact, thus broken 
by some of the parties, was no longer binding upon the others. The 
breach was not made by the Seceding States. Under the circumstances, 
and the facts of this case, therefore, the legal as well as moral right, on 



14 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

the part of Georgia, according to the laws of Nations and nature, to de- 
clare herself no longer bound by the Compact, and to withdraw from the 
Union under it, was perfect and complete. These principles are too 
incontestably established to be questioned, much less denied, in the forum 
of reason and iustice.^''—iConstUutional View, etc., vol. i., page 495.) 

Such arc the doctrines and principles set forth in the book 
upon the subject of the Biffht of Secession. These, Dr. Eled- 
soe asserts, are inconsistent with the principles and doctrines 
held by me in the speech referi'ed to. To sustain his side of 
this issue, he quotes, or pretends to quote, from that speech. 
After producing a part of it, he says : 

" Now here, without the least reference to the mode of Secession, it is 
broadly and plainly asserted that ' Secession would be a violation of that 
sacred instrument, the Constitution, which so many of his hearers had 
sworn to support.' If this does not deny the Constitutional right of 
Secession, then may we despair of ever arriving at the real import of the 
plainest possible modes of expression." — (Page 275 of Review.) 

In reply to this your readers may be surprised to be in- 
formed that no such expression, as quoted by Dr. Bledsoe, is 
to be found in the speech to which he refers, from the begin- 
ning to the end of it. It is a distorted fabrication. It is but 
the figment of his own disordered imagination : the creation 
of that fierce passion with which he seems to think critical 
reviews, as well as histories, should be written. The speech 
from which he pretends to quote, as is well known, was an 
earnest remonstrance before the Legislature of Georgia against 
Secession, for any of the grievances then complained of. All 
these were discussed in order. Some of them I did not think 
Buflieicnt to justify the exercise of this right. On these the 
Doctor fully admits I had the best of the argument (page 266 
of lievieio). Others I did believe to be sufiicient, as wiU be 
seen ; though even for a redress of them, I advised the adop- 
tion of another, and which I thought a better, line of policy. 
That speech, moreover, it may be here stated for the informa- 
tion of those who have not seen the volume in which it is pub- 
lished, and from which the Doctor quotes, was entirely extem- 
porary. It stands in the words of a reporter, with only a 
hurried revision by me. That part of it, as it thus stands, 



REVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 15 

including what was reproduced by him, and from which this 
expression attributed to me is manufactured, is in these words : 

" The first question that presents itself is : Shall the people of the 
South secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lin- 
cohi to the Presidency of the United States ? My countrymen, I tell you 
frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In 
^J judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that 
high office, is sufficient cause for any State to separate from the Union. 
It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the 
country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw 
from it because a man has been constitutionally elected, puts us in the 
wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution. Many of us have 
sworn to support it. Can we, therefore, for the mere election of a man 
to the Presidency, and that, too, in accordance with the prescribed forms 
of the Constitution, make a point of resistance to the Government with- 
out becoming the breakers of that sacred instrument ourselves, by with- 
drawing ourselves from it ? Would we not be in the wrong ? Whatever 
fate is to befall this country, let it never be laid to the charge of the 
people of the South, and especially to the people of Georgia, that we 
were untrue to our national engagements." 

All this refers, as clearly appears, especially and exclusively 
to the election of Mr. Lincoln, as a sufficient cause to justify 
Secession. The opinion was given that his election, or the 
hare election of any man, constitutionally chosen, however 
dangerous the principles he might entertain, was not, in my 
individual judgment, sufficient cause to justify it. But is there 
any thing in the whole extract which looks any thing like the 
hroad, unqualified de?iial of the right which Dr. Bledsoe puts 
in my mouth ? If there be not the least reference here to the 
mode of Secession, is there not a much more pertinent and 
special reference to a jparticular cause that would not justify 
it ? Is there any thing here like a denial that any cause would 
justify Secession or the withdrawal of a State from the Union ? 
or like the assertion that no cause would justify such action ? 
Is not the inference clearly the other way ? That some other 
cause or causes might ? 

But the matter is not left to inference only. It is put 
beyond doubt or cavil, as I maintain, in the after part of the 
same speech, which Dr. Bledsoe had before hmi. As the 



16 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

greater part of liis, as well as your readers, perhaps, have never 
seen the whole of the speech, I therefore submit for their con- 
sideration, on the points at issue between us, the following 
additional extracts : 

" But it is said that Mr. Lincoln's policy and principles are against the 
Constitution, and that, if he carries them out, it will be destructive of 
our rights ! Let us not anticipate a threatened evil ! If he violates the 
Constitution, then -will come our time to act." 

Again, after going through with all the other grievances 
complained of, I proceeded as follows (the parts are now itali- 
cized for special notice) : 

"Now, upon another 'point, and that the most difficult, and deserv- 
ing your most serious consideration, I will speak ! That is, the course 
which this State should pursue toward these Northern States which, by 
their legislative acts, have attempted to nullify the fugitive slave law. . . . 
Northern States, on entering into the Federal Compact^ pledged themselves 
to surrender such fugitives ; and it is in disregard of their constitutional 
obligations that they have passed laws which even tend to hinder or in- 
hibit the fulfilment of that obligation.. They liave violated their plighted 
faith ! What ought we to do in view of this ? That is the question. 
What is to be done ? By the law of Nations you would have a right to 
demand the carrying out of this article of agreement, and I do not see 
that it should ie otherwise with respect to the States of this Union. . . . The 
States of this Union stand upon the same footing " [toward each other, of 
course] " with foreign nations in this respect. . . . Suppose it were Great 
Britain that Jiad violated some compact of agreement with the General 
Government — what would be first done ? In that case our Minister would 
be directed, in the first instance, to bring the matter to the attention of 
that Government, or a Commissioner be sent to that country to open 
negotiations with her, ask for redress, and it would only be after argument 
and reason had been exhausted in vain that we would take the last resort 
of Nations. That would be the course toward a Foreign Government, and 
toward a mcmler of this Confederacy I would recommend the same course. 
Let us not, therefore, act hastily or ill-temperedly in this matter. Let 
your Committee on the State of the Republic make out a bill of griev- 
ances; let it be sent by the Governor to i\xose faithless States; and if 
reason and argument shall be tried in vain— if all shall fail to induce 
them to return to their constitutional obligations— J wowZcZ le for retalia- 
tory meamrcs, such as the Governor has suggested to you. This mode of 
resistance in the Union is in our power. It might he effectual, and if {not], 
in the last resort we would be justified in the eyes of Nations, not only 



EEVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 17 

in separating from them, but by using force. ... At least, let these oflFend- 
ing and derelict States know what your grievances arc, and if they refuse, 
as I said, to give us our rights under the Constitution, I should be willing, 
as a last resort, to sever the ties of our Union with tlicni. My own opinion 
is, that if this course be pursued, and they are informed of the conse- 
quences of refusal, these States will recede, will repeal their nullifying 
acts ; but if they should not, then let the consequences be with them, and 
the responsibility of the consequences rest upon them. . . . Now, then, 
my recommendation to you would be this : In view of all these questions 
of difficulty, let a Convention of the 'peofle of Oeorcjia be called, to which 
they may be all referred. Let the sovereignty of the people speak. Some 
think that the election of Mr. Lincoln is cause sufficient to dissolve the 
Union. Some think those other grievances are sufficient to dissolve the 
same, and that the Legislature has the power thus to act. I have no 
hesitancy in saying that the Legislature is not the proper lody to sever 
our Federal relations, if that necessity shhuld arise. . . . Sovereignty is 
not in the Legislature ! We, the people, are Sovereign ! I am one of 
them, and have a right to be heard, and so has every other citizen of 
the State. You legislators — I speak it respectfully — are but our ser- 
vants! You are the servants of the people, and not their masters! 
Power resides with the people in this country. . . . This principle of 
popular sovereignty, however much derided lately, is the foundation of 
our Institutions. Constitutions are but the channels through which the 
popular will may be expressed. Our Constitution came from the people. 
They made it, and they alone can rightfully vnmal-e it. ... I am for pre- 
senting the question fairly to the people, by calling together an untram- 
melled Convention, and presenting all the questions to them — whether 
they icill go out of the Union, or what cause of resistance in the Union 
they may think best — and then let the Legislature act, when the peoplt 
in their majesty are heard. . . . Now, when this Convention assembles, if 
it shall be called, as I hope it may, I would say, in my judgment, with- 
out dictation, for I am conferring with you freely and frankly, and it is 
thus that I give my views — it should take into consideration all those 
questions which distract the public mind ; should view all the grounds of 
Secession, etc. . . . Another thing I would have that Convention to do : 
Reaffirm the Georgia platform with an additional plank in it. Let that 
plank be the fulfilment of these constitutional obligations on the part of 
those States — their repeal of these obnoxious laws as the condition of our 
remaining in the Union. . . . Should Georgia determine to go out of the 
Union, I speak for one, though my views might not agree with them, 
whatever the result may be, I shall bow to the will of her people." 

Is there any thing in this speech, as appears from any of 
these extracts, taken singly or collectively, inconsistent with 
2 



18 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

the doctrines and principles set forth in the book ? Is not the 
great Sovereign Bight of Secession as clearly admitted and 
recognized in the speech, under the same principles of the 
laws of Nations, as it is more elaborately argued and get forth 
in the book ? It is not admitted in the one, nor set forth in 
the other, either as a Constitutional right or a Revolutionary 
right. There is no such nonsense in the speech, or in the 
book. It has ever been held by me, on all occasions, as a Sov- 
ereign Rigid. All the confusion on this subject is with the 
Doctor himself. It w^as not by virtue of the Constitution that 
this right w^as to be exercised, but by virtue of that Sovereignty 
of the State by which the Constitutional Compact was entered 
into by her. The doctrine of the book on tliis point is as 
follows : 

" Tliis right of a State to consider herself no longer bound by a Com- 
pact which, in her judgment, has been broken by her Confederates, and 
to secede from a Union, formed as ours was, has nothing about it either 
new or novel. It is incident to all Federal Republics. It is not derived 
from the Comi^act Itself, It does not spring from it at all. It is derived 
from the same source that the right is derived to abrogate a treaty by 
either or any of the parties to it. That is seldom set forth in the treaty 
itself, and yet it exists, whether it be set forth or not. So in any Federal 
Compact whatever, the parties may or may not expressly provide for 
breaches of it. But where no such provision is made the right exists by 
the same laws of Nations which govern in all matters of treaties or con- 
ventions between Sovereigns." — (Vol. i., Con. Vieic, p. 500.) 

These arc the principles in which I was educated. From 
the time that I entered public life, and even before, I held the 
same, as the records can abundantly establish. However pro- 
foundly ignorant the Doctor confesses himself to have been 
upon the subject when he was " an old line Whig " (page 270, 
S. i?.), he should not take it for granted that all others were 
as uninformed as himself. He is, according to his own ac- 
knowledgment, even now but a neophyte. This may account 
for his seeing, as yet, the great truth so dimly. 

He seems really to think, because I did not say much about 
this right of Secession until I reached the latter part of the 
volume, that I did not know what I was about, and that what 



EEVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 19 

is there said was but an "after-thought." One would suppose 
that he had filled the chair of Mathematics in the University 
of Virginia long enough to have learned, that conclusions are 
logical results reached after a regular process of reasoning, and 
that they are seldom stated, by those who are masters of the 
problem in hand, until they are reached. This is the regular 
order of demonstration. This was the order pursued by me 
in establishing what, notwithstanding all his carping, this ex- 
professor himself admits to be an "imperishable tru'th! " 

The real gravamen, however, of the Doctor, may perhaps 
be, that I did not follow him in presenting the " numerous 
and converging causes " or grounds of Secession which he had 
set forth in the Southern Quarterly Qjages 264:-65, S. Review), 
such as the destruction of the balance of power, sectional legis- 
lation, formation of a geographical Action, the disregard of the 
checks of the Constitution, the unfair treatment of the slavery 
question, and the violent tone with which the question of Se- 
cession was discussed at the North— as he sets them forth. 
Upon a more careful and dispassionate reading of the " Consti- 
tutional View of the War between the States," however, he 
may find several of these topics very fully treated of in its 
pages. If some of them are entirely omitted, such as his lead- 
ing one, to wit : " Firstly, the destruction of the balance of 
power which was originally established between the North and 
the. South, and which was deemed by the authors of the Con- 
stitution to be essential to the freedom, safety, and happiness, 
of those sections of the Union " (i^age 264 of Reviev)\ it may 
be some relief to him to be informed that this was omitted 
simply because it has no fact in history to rest upon. I was 
writing for the informed as well as the uninformed— for the 
present as well as the future — and had some respect for my own 
character, as well as a proper devotion to the truth. There was 
no balance of power established between the North and the 
South, as sections, in the Constitution. The only balance of 
power established in that Compact in this respect, which was 
deemed by the authors of it to be essential to the freedom, 
safety, and happiness, of each and all the States, was the 
equality of the States, the reserved Sovereignty of the States, 



20 THE EEVIEWEES KEVIEWED. 

and the equal representation of their sovereignty in the Con- 
gress of States. Had I made such a statement as the Doctor 
has ventured to announce, I certainly should not have appended 
a copy of the Constitution to the work. For if I had, it would 
have been a complete refutation of the text. I^o wonder he 
complains so lustily at these everlasting proofs, by which the 
positions in the book are fortified in the accompanying appen- 
dix. So with the rest of his omitted grounds. " The violent 
tone with which the question of Secession was discussed at the 
North," I did not think a sufficient cause for Secession, and 
therefore omitted it, though the Doctor may have annomiced it 
as a proper one some time before. So of the bare " formation 
of a geographical faction." 

But- that the "unfair treatment of the slavery question," 
when it amounted to a breach of the Federal Compact, on the 
part of several of the ISTorthern States, did fiilly justify Seces- 
sion, is certainly very fully discussed, if not clearly established, 
in the book. "Were it anybody else but Dr. Bledsoe who makes 
this statement, it would be a matter of wonder that this should 
be placed among the omitted grounds. 

But still, in his opinion, I did not " grapple " sufficiently 
with the subject; did not sufficiently comprehend its height, 
length, depth, and breadth ; did not show causes enough ! 
The one great cause, the violation of the fundamental princi- 
ple of the Federal system, as set forth in the book, was not 
sufficient for such stupendous results ! Indeed, he says, that 
Thucydides, two thousand years ago, in assigning the causes 
for the Peloponnesian war, came nearer the mark, in assigning 
the causes of our war, than I have come. This author he 
allows to be a " truly philosophic historian," and he pretends 
to quote what he said were the causes of the great Grecian 
Twenty-seven Years' War; but he is as unfortunate in his 
quotation from Thucydides as he is from me. Kead what he 
says : 

" Mr. Stephens attempts to describe what has passed before his eyes, 
and to assign its ' real causes.' Yet, by a truly ' philosophic historian ' 
was the thing infinitely better done more than two thousand years before 
the events of the late war happened. We allude, of course, to Thucydides. 



EEVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S EEVIEW. 21 

who, in liis history of the Peloponnesian War, says : ' And the cause of 
all these things was power pursued for the gratification of avarice, and 
the consequent violence of parties when once engaged in the contest.' 
Thus, in his account of the memorable war in which ' Greek met Greek,' 
is the cause of the late war depicted, with an insight far more profound, 
and an accuracy far more perfect, than it is in the history of !Mj. Ste- 
phens." — (Page 283, Review.) 

Now, I was not writing a History of our late war. I was 
only giving a Constitutional Yiew of its causes, character, con- 
duct, and results. 

But Thucydides assigned no such cause as tliat stated for 
the outbreak of the Peloponnesian "War, of which he is the 
great historian. The one great cause which he assigned for 
that war, and from which all its evils, sufferings, and demoral- 
ization sprung, was " the breaking the thirty-years' truce after 
the taking of Euboea." — (See Thucydides^ Book 1, sec. 23.) 

In what the Doctor quotes, the historian is speaking only of 
the evils of dissensions and factions, which first arose in Cor- 
cyra, and afterward spread through all Greece during the con- 
tinuance of the war. His exact language on the subject of 
these dissensions, and not the causes of the war (which is, as 
usual with the Doctor, misquoted), is as follows : 

" Now, the cause of all these things was power pursued for the gratifi- 
cation of covetousness and ambition [italics mine], and the consequent vio- 
lence of parties when once engaged in contention. For the leaders in the 
cities, having a specious profession on each side, putting forward, respec- 
tively, the political equality of the people, or a moderate aristocracy, 
while in word they served the common interests — in truth, they made 
them their prizes." — {Thucydides^ Book 3, sec. 82.) 

This reference to Thucydides was very unfortunate for the 
Doctor, in several respects. He not only misquotes him, and 
then misapplies what he attempts to quote, but directs atten- 
tion to the highest authority against himself, on the very points 
he was making on me, in this violent outburst of temper. He 
is answered by his own authority. Thucydides assigned but 
one cause for the Great War between the Grecian States. This 
was the breach of the thirty-years' truce. " As for the reason 
why they broke it" he gives the grounds of complaints at large, 



22 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

on both sides, and witli sucli dispassionate impartiality — ' cold- 
hloodcdncss^ if you please — tliat no one, nnless otherwise in- 
formed, could come to any correct opinion as to liis own 
position in the contest, or on which side he stood, though he was 
actually an active and zealous participant in the scenes he 
describes. 

If he, then, assigned but one leading cause for this great 
war, which was the true one, and could treat of it, after taking 
the part he did in it, with such cold-Uoodedness as he did — 
writing it, as he said, "not as a prize-task to listen to at the 
present moment," but as " a possession forever " (as it is likely 
to prove to be with the test of two thousand years) — does not 
the Doctor himself, by this reference, bring forward an illus- 
trious example in refutation of his positions, in the identical 
particulars he is so furious upon against me in this case 1 

From this "truly philosophic historian" the Doctor might 
learn some other useful lessons upon the subject of passion, 
even in war ! For instance, in book 1, section 122, he would 
see it stated that " war, least of all things, proceeds on definite 
principles, but adopts most of its contrivances from itself, to 
suit the occasion ; in- the course of which he that deals with it 
with good temper is more secure ; while he that engages in it 
with passion makes the greater failure." Had the Doctor, and 
those associated with him in the War Dej^artment at Kich- 
mond, during our late struggle, been governed more by calm 
good sense, and less by mere fierce and fiery passion and per- 
sonal prejudices (such as he still exhibits), our present condi- 
tion might have been infinitely better than it is ! 

But let us proceed to look at some other of his j)oints of 
inconsistency. First, at the complaint of the want of space, 
while the book is loaded with so much surplus matter ! Out 
of tlie 054 pages of the volume, one hundred and four of them 
(lie has counted them) are taken up, he says, with cumbrous 
documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, Consti- 
tution of the United States, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 
the Virginia Resolutions of '98-99, and Mr. Madison's report 
thereon — documents which, he says, are in every gentleman's 
library. He has them in at least a dozen volumes, etc. (p. 251, 



EEVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 23 

JReview). Now, by far the longest of these documents is Mr. 
Madison's Eeport of 1Y99 on the Virginia Eesolutions of 1798. 
If the Doctor possesses this in even a half dozen other volumes, 
or even the half of that, he is much luckier than I am ; and I 
believe I have quite as large a miscellaneous library as most 
country gentlemen. So lar from its being on every book-shelf 
in America, I will venture the opinion against his that it can- 
not be found on one in a hundred thousand of the book-shelves 
in America. I never saw but three copies of this Keport be- 
fore its republication in this volume. One is an old ])amp1ilet 
copy in my possession, one is in the supplement to the 33d 
volume of Niles' Register, and the other in the 4th volume of 
Elliot's Debates. If the Doctor is fortunate enough to possess 
these two very rare works, he has two copies, among the nu- 
merous volumes on his shelves, but I doubt if one in a thousand 
of his readers ever saw a copy of it, or knew where to obtain 
it. I very much question if he himself ever saw a copy of it ' 
before in his life, as his article has strong internal evidence that 
he never had read it up to the time his article was written. 
In 1861, while he was hogging about in search of knowledge 
upon the nature of the Government, "when the tremendous 
shock " of the warring elements which underlay the foundation 
of its whole superstructure came so suddenly and alarmingly 
upon him, if he had blundered upon Niles' Register, or some 
kind friend had been able to turn him to a copy of Elliot, and 
he had then read and studied this report^ he might have found 
that light which he so eagerly sought for, but failed to obtain, 
in the speech of Mr. Benjamin ! (p. 209, Beview). Perhaps, 
if he will Tjet read it, he will see its great relevancy and essen- 
tial loertinency to the questions discussed in the volume he had 
under review, as well as the like relevancy of the speeches of 
Holcombe and Toombs. Upon, a more careful reading he may 
also see the pertinency and great relevancy of the reproduction 
of the time-honored Declaration of Independence, with quite 
enough " scraps of brains " (page 251, Beview) in the Text to 
show this relevancy. Upon examining this copy thus repro- 
duced—taken from " the bowels of Elliot's Debates "—he may 
see that its dilfers, in its Title, very essentially from the other 



24 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

numerous copies of the same Document with which his shelves 
may be bur^Jened. He will see, if he will look, that the Title, 
when acted upon by the Congress, was made to conform to their 
action upon it as a Congress of States. At least it so appears 
in Elliot. There it stands thus : " In Congress, July 4, 17Y6. 
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of 
America." How it stands on the Journal I do not know, as I 
have no copy of that ; but as it stands in Elliot it was put forth 
as the Declaration, not of a collective body of men, but the 
Declaration of States ! It was no DeGlavation of National 
Independence^ or the Independence of one people as a Nation, 
but the Independence of Separate States ! The use made of it 
in the argument, and particularly the use made of this striking 
difference between the Title as it there stands, and the Title 
of copies usually met with, rendered it altogether proper and 
essential to the force of the argument, that the p)^'Oof should 
accompany it. But apart from all this, how many of the thou- 
sands of readers for whom the book was intended, ever saw the 
Declaration at all, or the Articles of the Confederation ? And 
who could properly appreciate or estimate the argument in 
connection with either without a copy before him ? 

How, again, does the book compare, in this respect, with 
others on like or kindred subjects, by authors of character, 
repute, and distinction ? 

Dr. Francis Liebcr's celebrated volume on " Civil Liberty 
and Self-Government " consists of 614 pages without counting 
the index ; of these one hundred and fifty-one consist of nothing 
but an appendix of documentary matter, such as Magna 
Charta, the Petition of Hight, the Act of Parliament against 
Imprisonment for Debt, the Habeas Corpus Act, and, besides 
various other papers of value referred to in the text, this very 
same Declaration of the Independence of these States, hxit not 
%oiit\ the title as it stands m Elliot ! This work was published by 
J. P. Lippincott & Co., of Philadelphia. Was this an exhibition 
of " the vice of book-making," either by this noted author or his 
highly respectable publishers ? Wherein is the National Pub- 
lishing Company less so than the Lippincotts ? 

Is there a single paper in this most valuable appendix of Dr. 



KEVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 25 

Lieber which a careful reader would not wish to have before 
him in perusing the text, even if he had the same paper in a 
dozen other volumes ? 

Lord Mahon (since Earl of Stanhope) published, not many 
years ago, an exceedingly interesting history of England, from 
the " Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Paris," in 2 volumes. 
To the first volume, consisting of 567 pages, he has an appendix 
of 79 pages, very little short of the ratio so querulously com- 
plained of by Dr. Bledsoe, in the book he was reviewing. Was 
Lord Mahon guilty of " the vice of book-making ? " or of swell- 
ing out his volumes for money, with the hope of eifecting sales 
by a great reputation ? Hume, a standard historian, to his first 
volume of the History of England, consisting of 483 pages, has 
appendices Nos. 1 and 2, besides notes amounting to 70 pages. 
Here again the ratio is very little short of that so much com- 
plained of by Dr. Bledsoe. Napoleon, the present Emperor 
of France, has lately published a life of Julius Caesar, in 2 
volumes. The first is out of place in my library ; but to the 
second I see an appendix of 65 pages out of 659. Is he guilty 
of the " vice of book-making," or writing for means wherewith^ 
to live ? 

But the Doctor complains that so many extracts of speeches 
are interspersed through the text of the book, and other docu- 
mentary evidence. This he calls the work of "scissors" "in 
book-making" {pa,ge 250 of Review). How would his "truly 
philosophic historian," Thucydides, pass the scrutiny of such 
criticism ? How much of his work which was to be a " posses- 
sion forever " is made up entirely of speeches ? If the Doctor 
had criticised Thucydides by tajje, as he did the Constitutional 
Yiew, he might have found, perhaps, quite as large a portion of 
his volume taken up in this way as in the one before him, 
"Were these speeches of Thucydides' own making, or were they 
correct reports of those that were really made by the persons to 
whom they are attributed? If the former, then his work is 
not history, but fiction. "We have his word, however, and 
authority for it, that all of them which he heard are reported as 
accurately, in substance, as possible ; and those that he did not 
hear are as accurate as he could make them, from reports through 



0(5 THE PwEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

the most authentic sources he could find {Thucydides, Book 1, 
Bee. 22). His object, as a true historian, was to have them as 
accurate in substance as they could be made. On this point, 
in this country, there is not so much difficulty. Most of the 
speeches introduced in the " Constitutional View" etc., are, 
moreover, of much higher authority than any bare ex temjpm^e 
addresses, however accurately reported. They are the carefidly 
prepared arguments of the principal actors in the passing scenes ; 
and, in giving an accurate and truthful history of the progress 
of ideas, and the development, as well as the workings of the 
opposing principles of our system of government, they are worth 
more than all the speculations and word-paintings on the sub- 
ject that could be produced by the most accomplished masters 
of rhetoric. They daguerreotype a life-picture, whether with 
agreeable or hideous features, of the great movement, in each 
varying phase of its onward progress ! To collect, select, and 
arrange such matters for such a picture is not " the work of 
scissors " merely ! It requires toil and labor, as well as " brains !" 
Not the irksome toil for " daily bread," either ; much less for 
" filthy lucre ; " but that unwearying labor which is prompted 
and sustained by the soul-inspiring object of exposing error and 
defending truth ! This is the kind of labor I am now perform- 
ing, and even in this I have found it necessary to make frequent 
use of " scissors." There is another instrument I am making 
considerable use of also, and that is a pen. For my pui-poses 
these are both essentially necessary ; but it requires " brains " 
to direct either, as well as both, for the accomplishment of the 
end desired. 

So it is in all the business of life, as well as in all the works 
of art. It is eminently so in all historical productions. In 
these, he who undertakes to speak, to write, to paint, or to 
sculpture, must take the materials as he finds them. He cannot 
create them or change their substance, and in dealing with them 
he must use instruments at his command. To dig down into 
the annals of the past ; to quarry out the materials of other 
epochs, where they lie buried in remote and distant strata ; to 
put tliem in proper shape ; to bring them together ; to adjust 
them and to place them in proper position, so as to erect out of 



REVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 27 

tliem, with due symmetry and proper proportions, an enduring 
monument of facts — of indestructible truths — which, in their 
artistic presentation, shall afford to the world, for the present 
and the future, a subject of study both agreeable and instructive, 
necessarily requires tools or iinplements of some sort and of 
various sorts. These it is the function of "brains" to direct; 
and when the attempt to make such a presentation is success- 
ful, be it on stone, or canvas, or on paper, the consummation of 
the whole is the work of " brains," of genius — it is a " veritable 
creation ! " In " making a book " — accomplishing this object — 
therefore, " scissors " may be as necessary and as useful as in 
bare " book-making." 

"Whether the " Constitutional View of the Late War be- 
tween the States^"* etc., is a stance of the one or the other, 
is not for me to say : nor ^o I mean hereby to express or inti- 
mate any opinion, one way or the other, upon that point ; but 
I do mean to reaffirm what is said in the book itself upon the 
introduction of these documents, and that is, that they bear 
upon them " the deep foot-prints of truth, impressed upon our 
earlier history ; which assertion can never obliterate, argument 
cannot remove, sophistry cannot obscure, time cannot erase, 
and which even wars can never destroy ! However upheaved 
the foundations of society may be by political con\'ulsions, these 
will stick to the very fragments of the rocks of our primitive 
formation, bearing their unerring testimony to the ages to 
come ! " I mean further to affirm that whether such presenta- 
tion as the one stated above be successfully made in this vol- 
ume or not, these materials bearing these footrfrints here col- 
lected,- constitute the only materials out of which such presenta- 
tion, on the subjects whereof it treats, in abler and more skilful 
hands, can ever be made ; and further still, that no one who 
looks upon them as ^^ nuisances''^ is a proper judge of how true 
histories or historical views should be composed ! 

But one of the strange things in this" review is that " scis- 
sors " did not do enough ! More quotations ought to have been 
made from The Federalist ! The proof, it is said, that Madison 
and Hamilton had styled the Constitution a Compact between 
Sovereign States is to be found in Numbers 39, 40, and 85 of 



28 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

The Federalist ! "Webster, it is further said, in his great speech 
of 1833, had boldly appealed to all contemporary history, to 
the numbers of The Federalist, to the debates in the Conven- 
tion, to the publications of friends and foes, to sustain him in 
his position, that the Constitution was not a Compact between 
States. 

" Xow," asks Dr. Bledsoe, " how does Mr. Stephens meet this bold, 
broad, and unscrupulous assertion ? Does he go to the history of the 
times, to The Federalist, to the various productions and publications 
alluded to by Mr, Webster, and show his assertion to be utterly and reck- 
lessly false ? Does he even show this, in regard to the one great point of 
his book, that ' the Constitution was a Compact between the States ? ' 
He docs not. ' The broad assertion ' of Mr. Webster, says he, ' doubtless 
made a deep impression at the time upon those not conversant with the 
facts, hut it can have no effect upon us who have travelled so carefully through 
the records of those days.'' But this will not do ; we want something more 
than bare assertion. In questions of such magnitude, the bare assertions 
of neither Mr. Webster nor of Mr. Stephens will do. We want to see their 
arguments ; especially the arguments of those who have ' travelled so 
carefully through the records of those days.' What records ? Is not The 
Federalist (the only record to which Mr. Webster specifically appeals), 
worthy of notice ? Nay, is not this, beyond all comparison, the most im- 
portant of all the ' records of those days ' which relate to the nature of 
the Constitution ? Most assuredly it is." 

Most assuredly, he it said hach to Dr'. Bledsoe, it is not ! 
It is not the only record to which Mr. AVebster specially ap- 
pealed ; nor is it the most important of all those to which he 
appealed ; neither is it the most important of all the records of 
those days which relate to the nature of the Constitution ! Far 
from it ! 

The debates in the Federal Convention, and in the State 
Conventions, and the official acts of the States in calling the 
Convention, and in assenting to and ratifying the Constitution, 
are rcc(jrds of a much higher order. These are the records 
through which the colloquists had travelled so carefully. These 
are the records which encumber the ninety-six pages which the 
Doctor most probably counted without reading, else he would 
not clamor so petulantly for additional minor proof from TJie 
Federalist ! lie complains that more work of " scissors " did 



REVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 29 

not sliow that Madison and Hamilton, in The Federalist, gave 
it as tJieir opinion that the Constitution was a Compact between 
States ; while, if he had been more studious and less querulous, 
lie would have seen that this fact had been proved by evidence 
of a much higher order ! He would have seen that the tenure 
of State Sovereignty had been established, not by secondary 
evidence of any sort, but by the original " title deeds " them- 
selves ! 

The Doctor would do well to study a booh, at least to under- 
stand it, before he undertakes to assail its author for such delin- 
quencies, imless his object be only to distort and misrepresent. 
This, indeed, appears to have been his leading, if not sole ob- 
ject, in his notice of this book. Of this many evidences could 
be given. A few will suffice. 

On page 268 of the Heview, he makes quotations from my 
speech on 14th of November, 1860, interlarded with words of 
his own, so as to make the impression on the minds of his read- 
ers that he was quoting connectedly from me ; ending with a 
grand poetic climax of his own interposition, which, by pimctu- 
ation, is made to appear as if taken from the speech, and on 
which he comments as follows : 

" Now, all this is very fine. We believe it is called poetry ; and surely 
nothing, in its proper place, is better than poetry," etc. 

Now I wonder if the Doctor really thinks that this stanza 
from Bryant, 

" Truth crushed to earth will rise again," etc., 

which he so surreptitiously interpolated into my speech, is 
■poetry pj'operli/ put " in its proper place ? " How does he ex- 
cuse such " lese-majesty, such a petty treason against the great 
republic of letters — the only republic we have left to us now \ " 
{Review, page 254.) Again, page 272, he says : 

" We did not credit the statement of a correspondent, who had visited 
Mr. Stephens at Liberty Hall, that he represented himself as having al- 
ways been a Secessionist, and denied that Mr. Davis was originally one. 
But, in the volume before us, there is something like these extraordinary 
assertions." 



30 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

In this statement there is a double misrepresentation. No 
correspondent, who had visited me, ever stated that I repre- 
sented myself as having always been a Secessionist, and denied 
that Mr. Davis was originally one, that ever I heard of or be- 
lieve ; and it is utterly untrue that there is in the volume before 
him any thing like these extraordinary assertions. Let any one 
read what I have said of Mr. Davis, and then read what Dr. 
Bledsoe has said upon it, and he will see something quite as 
pitiful, perhaps, as " the pitifullest thing " the Doctor has lived 
to see ! 

On this subject of " pity " (page 292), witness how lugubri- 
ously he rages and rants ! 

" We have seen," says he, " many pitiful things in our time. But — 
pitifullest of all ! — we have, at last, come to see the Vice-President of the 
late Confederate States, the second officer over a great people, claiming to 
be a projihet, and yet actually expecting 'the down-trodden people of the 
Earth ' to be regenerated by — ' an idea ! ' If this thing had happened in 
the hey-day of our prosperity, when all was joyous, and smiling, and 
happy around us, there might, perhaps, have been some little excuse for 
such wild extravagance of folly. But we h'ave passed through all the 
whirlwinds, and darkness, and distress, and storms, and vade-wasting 
desolations of the late Revolution, only to be told that some ' new idea,' 
or some little raree-show, will yet regenerate the world ! And is this a 
philosopher, or a statesman, or a historian, who thus speaks to us? Or 
is it some little jeering spirit, whom the Arch-Fiend has sent to us, to 
make a mockery of all the mighty hopes lying blasted on all sides around 
us?" 

Did any roving knight in the " Great Republic of Letters" 
ever before wield a more " trenchant blade " than is here so 
truculently thrust about ? Is there any thing in the exploits 
of the most renowned of the Order in Chivalry, even of him of 
the " Sorrowful Figure" in his most noted adventure against 
the windmills, to be compared to this ? 

Passing such exhibitions of ire and folly, without further 
comment, let us return to his charges of inconsistency, with his 
perversions and misrepresentations. On page 276, he says : 

" It is evident that Mr. Stephens did not believe in the right of Seces- 
cion as lute as March 14, 18G0 [November, 1860, perhaps was meant, for 
(he Doctor liardly ever quotes any thing correctly] ; and, even to the 



REVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 31 

present day, he seems to entertain no very clear, well-deflned, or established 
views on the subject. In the first colloquy of the volume before us, he 
speaks, it is true, of the right of Secession ; but he seems to confound this 
' constitutional right ' with the extra-constitutional ' right of revolution.' 
Thus, in what he calls 'The issue presented,' he says: 'The war was 
inaugurated and waged by those at the head of the Federal Government 
against these States, or the people of these States, to prevent their with- 
drawal from the Union. On the part of these States, which had allied 
themselves in a common cause, it was maintained and carried on purely in 
defence of this great right, claimed by them, of State Sovereignty and 
Self-Governmcnt, which they, with their associates, had achieved in their 
common struggle with Great Britain, under the Declaration of 1770, and 
which, in their judgment, lay at the foundation of the whole structure of 
American free institutions.' 

"Now here 'the great Right of withdrawal from the Union,' is repre- 
sented as the same with that exercised by those who withdrew from the 
British Government, and set up the great Republic of this continent." 

This contains a palpable misrepresentation, as well as a 
latent error. The gi-eat Eight claimed by the Seceding States, 
and in defence of which the war was waged on their part, is not 
(in the quotation from me) represented as the same with that 
exercised by those who withdrew from the British Government. 
No such thing. But it is clearly and distinctly stated to be the 
great right oi State Sovereignty and Self-Government wJiich had 
leen achieved by the war of Independence. This is the mism-e- 
sentation. 

Those who achieved their Independence under that declara- 
tion did not set up the great Eepublic of this continent. There 
is no such thing as one, great single Eepublic on this continent. 
In the idea here conveyed, that there is, consists the latent 
error. They set up thu'teen separate and distinct Eepublics. 
These thirteen separate and distinct Eepublics set up the great 
Federal Eepublic, of this continent. This Federal Republic, 
like all Federal Eepublics, is entirely Conventional in its origin, 
structure, nature, and powers. Its constituents were thirteen 
distinct Sovereign States. This is what the whole discussion 
on this branch of the subject was intended to elucidate and 
establish. But the Doctor goes on : 

" In those chapters he merely discusses and establishes the doctrine 
of the Sovereignty of the States, and the nature of the Constitution as a 



32 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

compact between the States, -witliout even once alluding to the constitu- 
tional right of Secession. It cannot be said, that as he held these doctrines 
he must have believed in the right of Secession, for Mr. Calhoun held the 
same doctrines, and established them in his great Senatorial speech of 
1833, and yet he denied the right of Secession. Mr. Stephens may have done 
the same thing, for all that we know, or for all that he has shown to the 
contrary." 

Wliat is said of me in this place is anotlier palpable mis- 
representation, while what is said of Mr. Calhoun, by all sensi- 
ble, intelligent people, can be regarded as little short of a down- 
right Ihinchausenism ! For in that very speech in 1833 (page 
281 of the " Constitutional View," etc.), to say nothing else of 
the teachings of his whole life, Mr. Calhoun distinctly said : 
" Ilaving established this point, I now claim, as I stated I would 
do in the course of the discussion, the admissions of the Senator, 
and among them, the right of Secession," etc. 

"What is said by him in the extract, about nothing being said 
by me in the book upon the " Constitutional Right " of Seces- 
sion, is true ; but there is a vast deal said in it about the Sove- 
reign Right of Secession. This great right is maintained through- 
out the work, not as a Constitutional Right, or a Eevolutionary 
Right, but as a Sovereign Eight. It exists, not by virtue of the 
Constitution, but by virtue of State Sovereignty. Mr. Calhoun 
evidently claimed it upon the same grounds. But who, in the 
face of all these facts, can say that either I or he ever denied the 
Right of Secession ? 

On page 278, Dr. Bledsoe says : 

" In this discussion he (IVIr. Stephens) makes the wonderful discovery, 
that for ' forty years after the Government had gone into operation,' the 
' fathers generally, as well as the great mass of the people throughout the 
country,' maintained the opinion that the right of Secession existed. This 
wonderful conclusion is established, not by an appeal to the historic 
records of the country, but by logic. ' The right of a State to withdraw 
from the Union,' says he, ' was never denied or questioned, that I am 
aware of, by any jurist, publicist, or statesman of character or standing, 
until Kent's Commentaries appeared, in 1826, nearly forty years after the 
Government had gone into operation.' Hence, as the right was not denied 
by any one, he concludes that ' it was generally recognized in all parts of 
the Union.' The truth is, the subject was not discussed, or considered, 
by the public men of the country at all during the period referred to ; and 



EEVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 33 

hence there was uo occasiou for the expression of an opinion as to the 
right of Secession." 

"Was Dr. Bledsoe mad, crazy, or only excessively torn by liis 
IMSsions, under the influence and instigation of some " little 
jeering spirit " of evil, or " the Arch-Fiend himself," when he 
made such statements ? The subject not discussed during the 
period referred to ! Did not Judge Tucker's Commentaries 
appear during this period ? Did not ho clearly maintain the 
right ? Did not some of the New England States, during this 
period, threaten to secede ? Was not a Convention looking to 
this end called ? Were not resolutions passed embracing this 
right ? AVas not this an occasion for the expression of an opin- 
ion on the subject? Did not Mr. Eawle write his Treatise 
during this period, clearly vindicating the right ? Are not these 
historic records ajypealed to and])roduced in the hooh ? There 
they are regarded by him as " nuisances ; " and yet he assumes 
to rail at the author for not having adduced them ! Was there 
ever a more reckless assertion than that this " wonderful conclu- 
sion " was arrived at, " not by an appeal to the historic records 
of the country, but by logic 1 " Docs he show that these records 
are wrong, or that the statements founded upon them were not 
true ? Incontrovertibly and impcrishably true ? 

But read him further : 

" Is it not wonderful that, instead of studying history in the light of 
its own records, Mr, Stephens should have attempted to reconstruct it by 
logic ? " 

Is not a straight-jacket more appropriate for a man who thus 
raves, than the business he had in hand ? 
On page 285, Dr. Bledsoe says : 

" '■ The Government of the United States,' says Mr. Stephens, ' I did 
think, and do still think, the best the world ever saw, and I fear the world 
will never see its like again.' " — (Page 31.) 

This is another palpable and gross perversion of the text, as 
any one can see by turning to the page cited. As it there stands, 
(except that the italics are now made,) it is in these words : 

" The object in quitting the Union was not to destroy, but to save the 
principles of the Constitution. The form of government therein embodied I 



34 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

did think, and do still think, the best the world eyer saw, and I fear the 
world will never see its like again." 

The object of tliis perversion, wliicli runs througli liis entire ■ 
review, is apparent. It was that by confounding the form of 
the Government with its administration, he might indulge his i 
passion, in holding up the monstrous spectacle of my extolling ; 
a Government which, in its present mal-administration, has in- • 
flicted such wrongs upon me personally, and has brought such . 
ruin upon the country generally. 

On page 293, in speaking of my attributing to Mr. Jeiferson 
the " new idea " in a Federal system (by which the common 
agent is empowered to act, to a limited extent, directly upon 
the individual citizens of the respective States, the States re- 
maining sovereign), which was adopted in our system, (and fi'om 
which new principle, in the opinion of De Tocqueville, so 
momentous and advantageous consequences ensued), the Doctor ' 
says : 

" It did not originate with Mr. Jefferson, or first impregnate his brain , 
with celestial fire. Or, if it did, the fact was wholly unknown to James 
Madison. For, in his Introduction to the great Debates of 1787, Mr. 
Madison goes into the origin of this ' new idea ;' and he does not even so 
much as allude to his great friend Mr. Jefferson. He is, on the contrary, 
compelled to give the credit of this ' new idea ' to Noah Webster — the 
same who made the little spelling-book and the big Dictionary." 

ISlow, Mr . Madison, in the paper referred to, does not go 
into the question of this " new idea," nor does he give the credit 
of it to Noah Webster. He makes no specific reference to it or 
its origin at all. "What he attributes to Dr. Webster was the 
idea of a "new system," which should act, it is true, directly 
upon individuals, and not on the States. But he says nothing 
about the Sovereignty of the States being retained under that 
system. His language on the subject is this : 

" In the winter of 1784-5, Noah Webster, whose political and other 
valuable writings had made him known to the public, proposed, in one 
of his publications, a new system of government which should act, not on 
the States, but directly on individuals, and vest in Congress full power to 
carry its laws into effect." — (Elliot's Debates^ vol. 5, p. 118.) 



KEVIEW OF DK. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 35 

In tills, it is seen, there is no allusion to any idea of per- 
mitting the Federal Government to act on the individual citi- 
zens of the States, in limited and specified cases onl/, and with 
the full reservation of the Sovereignty of each of the States 
respectively. In other words, there is nothing in this statement 
attributing to Dr. Webster any idea whatever which is different 
from the idea of doing away entirely with the Federal system, 
and instituting a new system of a General and National 
Government, vesting in Congress full power to carry its laws 
into effect, such as Hamilton, Randolph, and other Nationalists 
espoused in the Convention afterwards. Such a change would 
have been a " neio system,^'' but it would not have been based 
upon the " neio idea^'' or new principle in Federal Republics 
referred to. I have never seen the pamjihlet of Dr. Webster. 
It may have contained this identical " new idea^'' or new prin- 
ciple, which was subsequently incorporated in our . Federal 
system, for he was a very profound philosopher on more subjects 
than language, notwithstanding the jeering remarks of the 
redoubtable Dr. Bledsoe. 

But Mr. Madison could not, I think, have intended to attri- 
bute the idea of this new principle of our ]>resent Federal 
system to Dr. Webster, for on page 120 of the 5th volume of 
Elliot's Deba.tes (in the same paper referred to by Dr. Bledsoe), 
he says : 

" As a sketch on paper, the earliest, perhaps, of a Constitutional govern- 
ment for the Union (organized into regular departments, with phj-sical 
means operating on individuals), to be sanctioned by the people of the 
States, acting in their original and sovereign character, was contained in 
th'e letters of James Madison to Thomas Jefl'erson of the 10th of March ; 
to Governor Randolph, of the 8th April ; and to General Washington, of 
the 10th of April, 1787 — for which see their respective dates." 

Now, in the letter to Governor Randolph of the 8th of April, 
1787, alluded to, Mr. Madison expressly states : " I hold it for 
a fundamental point that an individual independence of the 
States is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of an aggregate 
Sovereignty." — Garland's Life of J. Randolph, vol. 1, page 36.) 
This shows clearly that he had, up to that time (April, 1787), 
no clear conception himself or appreciation of this " new idea," 



36 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

and he can liardly, therefore, be supposed to have meant by 
what is said of Dr. Webster's " new system," to attribute to him 
this "new idea" for the structm-e of a Federal system. 
"What he said of Dr. "Webster's "new system," was in the same 
paper, as stated, in which he alludes to his own subsequent 
sketch. This sketch or plan is to be found in his letter to 
General "Washington referred to, ( Washington's Writings by 
Sparks, page 516, vol. 9) ; and though it does give a general 
outline for "a new system" of Government, organized into 
regular departments, oj^erating directly ujyon individuals, and 
not the States ; yet it does not contain this " new idea," for in 
his plan the Sovereignty of the separate States was not retained. 
It was but the outline of Governor E.andolj)h's National plan, 
which was afterwards submitted to the Philadelphia Convention, 
when it met in May, 1787. This sketch does, also, provide for 
a division of the powers of Government, under the new system 
proposed, into Legislative, Executive, and Judicial DejMrtments. 
But was not even this idea of such a division of powers and 
general organization, set forth in this plan, which he says was 
the first sketch on j)aper of a Constitutional government for the 
Union, derived by him from Mr. Jefferson, to whom I attri- 
buted it, though Mr. Madison says nothing about where he got 
it from ? The evidence is strong, if not conclusive, that it was. 
For this division of powers and general system of organization 
for a Federal system of Government was distinctly pointed out 
by Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, in a letter from Paris, the 
16th of December, 1786. (See this letter in the " Constitutional 
View of tJie War between the States, etc., page 91.) May not 
Mr. Madison's letter of the 19th of March, 1787, referred to by 
him, have been a reply to this one from Mr. Jefferson, of 
December previous ? In acknowledging his of the 16th of 
December before, and in reply to it, may he not have sent him 
a copy of the same sketch on paper to which he refers (a copy 
of which was sent to "Washington a short time afterwards), and 
which is found among "Washington's papers? Is not the 
probability, the weight of evidence, strongly that way ? especially 
as all we have, so fiir as I can find, of that letter of Mr. Madi- 
son to Mr. Jefferson, of 19th of March, 1787, is a short ex- 



REVIEW OF DR. BLEDSOE'S REVIEW. 37 

tract (5tli Elliot, 107), in which there is no reference whatever 
to this subject. 

N'ow, in this letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Madison, of 16th 
of December, 1786, \\A% outline of organization in anew system, 
as set forth in Mr. Madison's sletch, is fully given ; and not only 
this, but in that same letter this "new idea" is clearly em- 
braced, though not distinctly expressed. It was because it was 
so embraced that I attributed the first " impulse of its quicken- 
ing life " to the " brain of Mr. Jefferson," (page 479). 

The general outline suggested in that letter (of the 16th 
December, 1786, for a new system, was that the Union should 
be so modelled as " to make us one nation as to Foreign con- 
cerns, and to keep us distinct in Domestic ones." "But to 
enable the Federal Head to exercise the powers given to it, to 
the best advantage," Mr. Jefferson said that the General Gov- 
ernment should be " organized^'' as.the State Governments were, 
"into Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary'''' Departments. 
Now, what I said about this letter of Mr. Jefferson, written to 
Mr. Madison four months before his sketch was put upon paper, 
is as follows : 

" This, as far as I have been able to discover, after no inconsiderable 
research, is the first embodied conception of the general outline of those 
proper changes of the old Constitution, or Articles of Confederation, 
which were subsequently, as we shall see, actually, and in fact, engrafted 
on the old system of Confederations, and which makes the most marked 
difference between ours and all other like systems." — (Page 94.) 

The same opinion I still repeat, notwithstanding all that 
Dr. Bledsoe has said, for his own amusement, about Dr. Web- 
ster's "little spelling-book and big Dictionary." I repeat, I 
have not been able to see Dr. "Webster's pamphlet alluded to 
by Mr. Madison. It may be that in it he anticipated Mr. Jeffer- 
son in recommending that a Federal Government should be so 
formed as to make us one Nation as to foreign ones, and sepa- 
rate and distinct ones as to ourselves, with an organization and 
machinery in the Conventional State thus formed, for the full 
exercise of all its delegated and limited powers, similar to those 
of the separate States creating it. If so, then he is entitled to 
the honor of this " new idea," and no small honor it is, how- 



38 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

ever little it may be estimated or appreciated by superficial 
pretenders. But, certainly, Mr. Madison's statement referred 
to furnishes no just grounds upon wbicli to base a claim of it 
for him. Dr. Bledsoe has furnished no new light upon the 
subject, and I am therefore still of opinion that the credit of 
this "new idea" and "new principle" in Federal Republics, 
which was introduced into our system, is due to Mr. Jefferson. 

In conclusion, I may be excused for indulging in a very few 
words in reference to other portions of this review, which do 
not come within the limits marked out for this notice. 

For such general reference let this suffice. The whole ar- 
ticle (including the parts I have felt it a personal duty thus to 
notice, as well as all the rest), was evidently written in ill-hu- 
jnor — perhaps during the heated term of the dog-days; and 
what Dr. Bledsoe says in the same number of the Quarterly 
(page 433), of Dr. Brownson, might be very appropriately said 
of himself, in relation to this production ; and might be sug- 
gested to him as the only appropriately fitting answer to it, so 
far as he is concerned, to wit : 

" Had Dr. Brownson bestowed more conscientious labor on his politi- 
cal productions, with an eye single to truth and always steady [in ?] its 
movements, he would have written far less than he did ; but then his 
writings would have been far more worthy of the attention of posterity. 
As it is, they were born of the passions of the hour, and, with the passions 
of the hour, they will pass away." 

But this he would look upon as the work of " scissors," and 
we know how distasteful that might be to him. 

Yery respectfully, 

Alexander H. Stephens. 



AETICLE II . 

I. — Mr. Stephens' Reply to Hon. S. S. JSTicholas, of 
Kentucky. 



Liberty Hall, 
Cratvfordville, Ga., June 4, 1869 



.\ 



Messrs. Editors National Intelligencer, Washington, D. G. : 

I NOTICED in an issue of your paper some weeks ago, an»edi- 
torial in the following words : 

" Tlie Prime Cause of the Rebellion. — "We publish to-day a communica- 
tion from Hon. S. S. Nicholas, of Kentucky, upon the ' causa causans of 
the rebellion, its remedies, etc' Judge Nicholas has long been a close 
and intelligent student of our political affairs. A life-long and imswerv- 
ing advocate of the maintenance of constitutional right, lie has watched 
with zealous regard every movement to impaii* its force. To these obser- 
vations he has brought the aid of a powerful intellect, an iron energy, the 
experience of half a century devoted to judicial and literary labors, and a 
patriotic devotion that is questioned by none who know him, although 
oftentimes differing widely from his oi)inions. A communication upon 
such a subject from such a source must always command respectful con- 
sideration and invite serious reflection." 

In the same paper appeared the communication of Judge 
Nicholas referred to, which is entitled " The Causa Causans of 
the Late Eebellion." 

In this article the writer indulges in some remarks in refer- 
ence to myself which I do not think ought to be permitted to 
pass unnoticed by me, coming from the high source they do, 
and being endorsed, as they are, by so high authority as the 
national Intelligencer. The cause of truth, as I understand it, 
requires .that they should not be permitted thus to pass. I 
must, therefore, ask your indulgence in allowing me to make 



40 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

sucli comments in reply as I think the matter deserves. This 
would have been done at an earlier day, but for continued 
severe bodily affliction. The remarks to which I specially refer 

are as follows : 

« 

" The following condensed extracts are taken from the elaborate and 
able book of the Hon. A. H. Stephens on the causes of the late rebellion, 
and in attempted vindication of the pernicious dogma of secession. 

" ' In the nature of the^Uuited States Government and character of the 
Union can alone be discovered the remote but real causes of the war. All 
these troubles resulted as inevitable consequences from the violation of 
the fundamental laws governing our political system. 

" ' Negro slavery was unquestionably the occasion of the war, the main 
exciting cause on both sides, but was not the real cause, the causa causans, 
of it. 

" ' The war was inaugurated on the one side to vindicate the Right 
of Secession, and on the other in denial of the Right and to resist its exer- 
cise. It grew out of ojoposing views as to the nature of the Government, 
and vhere, under our system, ultimate sovereign power or paramount 
authority resides.' 

"Mr. Stephens has a perfect right to use his time and talents in self- 
justification as an aider of the rebellion; but he is not justifiable in even 
unintentionally drawing upon the orthodox State Rights principle addi- 
tional obloquy by his attempt to show that * opposing views ' as to those 
rights was the true cause of the civil war." 

What Judge Nicholas means by "the orthodox State Eights 
principle " he has not stated ; nor has he intimated wherein I 
have in the book, to which he refers, " unintentionally " or 
otherwise attempted to draw upon this orthodox principle, ac- 
cording to his idea of it, additional obloquy or obloquy of any 
kind. Nothing certainly was further from my design than 
what is thus imputed to the result of my labors. The great 
object with me was not self-justification barely, as he intimates, 
but the vindication of the only true State Eights principles 
which are consistent with the facts of the history of our coun- 
try. On these alone our entire fabric of Constitutional Liberty 
was based in the beginning, and on these alone can it be main- 
tained and preserved for the future. These principles, from 
the indisputable and irrefragable facts of history adduced in 
their vindication, (and, I may say, establishment beyond the 
power of refutation), necessarily carry with them the sover- 
eignty of the several States. 



REPLY TO JUDGE NICnOLAS. 41 

Wliatever ideas Judge ISTicliolas may have of the orthodox 
princijile of State Eights, I venture to affirm that it would be 
impossible for him, or anybody else, to name any single right 
of a State, or any single principle of State Eights under our 
system, which docs not depend for its existence upon the ne- 
cessarily admitted sovereignty of the several States ! There 
is no such thing as State rights without State sovereignty. 
The States severally possess no power, nor enjoy any privilege, 
by favor, grant, or delegation. All their rights and powers, as 
well those retained as those delegated, are inherent and sover- 
eign. This is an indisputable truth. It is equally true on the 
other side, that the General Government possesses no power by 
inherent or sovereign right. All its rights and powers are 
held by delegation only ; and held in trust by delegation from 
the sovereign States constituting it. Of course I speak of 
matters as they stood " ante helhiiinP 

If the facts of our history be as set forth in the volume referred 
to (and the world is challenged to disprove them), then the con- 
clusions to which they lead are inevitable, »vcn though they 
lead to a complete justification of the Sovereign Eight of Seces- 
sion as the only sure check and barrier against the usurpation 
of undelegated power on the part of the General Government. 
In the domain of reason the conclusions of logic are inexo- 
rable. This is the appropriate domain of history. Within its 
limits my labors were strictly confined. 

But my object in this note is not to join or raise any discus- 
sion with Judge Nicholas on the matter of " the orthodox State 
Eights principle," It will be time enough for me to do this 
with him or anybody else when there is an attempt made, by 
reason and argument,* to refute the positions of the book upon 
that subject. What I do not wish to permit to pass imnoticed 
is what he styles " condensed extracts " from the book referred 
to. Against one of these " condensed extracts" it is my wish 
to enter a respectful protest. Many of your readers, in this as 
well as in foreign countries, may see these extracts who may 
never see the book itseh*. I do not wish them to remain under 
the impression that I am therein accurately quoted ; at least, if 
they give sufficient attention to the subject to be impressed by 



42 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

the matter at all, I think it essential to a correct understanding 
that their opinions should be formed from my own language, 
and not his representations of it. 

What I said about the chief cause, the origin, and actual in- 
auguration of the war is in these words : 

" Slavery, so-called, or that legal subordination of the black race to the 
white, which existed in all but one of the States when the Union was formed, 
and in fifteen of them when the war began, was unquestionably the occa- 
sion of the war, the main exciting, proximate cause on both sides — on the 
one as well as the other. But it was not the real cause, the ' causa cau- 
sans ' of it. That was the assumption on the part of the Federal authori- 
ties that the people of the several States were, as you say, citizens of the 
United States, and owed allegiance to the Federal Government as the ab- 
solute sovereign power over the whole country, consolidated into one na- 
tion. The war sprung from the very idea you have expressed, and from 
the doctrines embraced in the question propounded to me. It grew out 
of different and directly ojDposite views as to the nature of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, and where, under our system, ultimate sover- 
eign power or paramount authority properly resides. 

" Considerations connected with the legal status of the black race in 
the Southern States, 'and the position of several of the Northern States 
toward it, together with the known sentiments and principles of those 
just elected to the two highest offices of the Federal Government, (Messrs. 
Lincoln and Hamlin), as to the powers of that Government over this sub- 
ject, and others which threatened, as was supposed, all their vital inter- 
ests, prompted the Southern States to withdraw from the Union, for the 
very reason that had induced them at first to enter into it : that is, for 
tlieir own better protection and security. Those who had the control of 
the administration of the Federal Government denied this right to with- 
draw or secede. The war was inaugurated and waged by those at the 
head of the Federal Government against these States, or the people of 
these States, to prevent their withdrawal from the Union. On the part 
of these States which had allied themselves in a common cause, it was 
maintained and carried on purely in defense of this great right, claimed 
by them, of State Sovereignty and Self-Government, which they with 
their associates had achieved in their common struggle with Great Brit- 
ain, under the Declaration of 1776 ; and which, in their judgment, lay at 
tlie foundation of the ^yhole structure of American free institutions. 

" This is a succinct statement of the issue, and when the calm and en- 
lightened judgment of mankind, after the passions of the day shall have 
passed ofi", and sliall be buried with the many gallant and noble-spirited 
men who fell on both sides in the gigantic struggle which ensued, shall 
be pronounced, as it will ])c, upon the right or wrong of the mighty con- 



REPLY TO JUDGE NICnOLAS. 43 

test, it must be rendered in favor of the one side or the other, not accord- 
ing to results, but according to the right in the issue thus presented." — 
Constitutional Vieio of the Late War leticeen the States, Vol. 1, p. 28. 

]^ow, if Judge Nicholas saw no difference between the issue 
as thus presented by nie touching the inauguration of the war, 
and that in his " condensed extract," then, perhaj^s, it would be 
a useless waste of time to argue with him upon the subject of 
State Rights, or any other que^ion which requires close atten- 
tion to the proper import of words. If he did see the difference, 
then, there is no need for any further defense before an intelli- 
gent public for his arraignment of me for doing what he is 
pleased so gratuitously to say I had no right to do, or was " not 
justifiable " in doing. The real cause of the war, as set forth 
m the issue presented by me, condensed in few words, was the 
denial of the fact that ours was a Federal Government ; and a 
violation of this fundamental principle of our complicated polit- 
ical organization on the part of those controlling the General 
Government at the time, by assuming that the United States 
constituted a nation of individuals^ with a consolidated sover- 
eignty in the Central Government, to which the ultimate as 
well as primary allegiance of the citizens of the .several 
States was due ; and that any attempt by the several States, or 
any of them, to resume the sovereign powers which had been 
previously delegated in trust only by them to the Federal 
agency,- was rebellion on their part. This violation of organic 
principles is stated to have been the immediate and real cause 
of the war — the '■^ causa causans''^ of it. This statement, sus- 
tained by indestructible facts as it is, must remain the ti'uth of 
history for all time to come. 

As to the origin of the war, or the first outbreak of hostili- 
ties, I did not say that it was " inaugurated on the one side to 
vindicate the Hight of Secession, and on the other in denial of 
the right and to resist its exercise." 

It was not inaugurated by the Seceding States at all. It 
was inaugurated and waged by those then controlling the Fed- 
eral Government to prevent Secession. On the part of the 
Seceding States, it was carried on pm-ely in defense of their 
right to withdraw from the Federal Union of States, which they 



44 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

claimed as a Sovereign Right. This is the substance of the 
statement on that point ; and so the fact will go down to pos- 
terit3\ 

The truth is well established that the Seceding States did 
not wish or desire war. Very few of the public men in these 
States even expected war. AH of them, it is true, held them- 
selves in readiness for it, if it should be forced upon them 
against their wishes and .most earnest protestations. 

This is abundantly and conclusively apparent from the 
speeches and addresses of their leading public men at the time. 
It is apparent from the resolutions of the State Legislatures and 
the State Conventions, before and in their Acts of Secession. 
It is apparent and manifest from their Acts in their new Con- 
federation at Montgomery. It is apparent from the Inaugural 
Address of President Davis. It is apparent from the appoint- 
ment of Commissioners to settle all matters involved in the 
separation from their former confederates, honorably, peaceably, 
amicably, and justly. It is apparent and manifest from every 
act that truly indicates the objects and motives of men, or from 
which their real aims can be justly arrived at. Peace not only 
with the States from which they had separated, but peace 
with all the world, was the strong desire of the Confederate 
States. 

The war was not only inaugurated by the authorities at 
"Washington, as stated, but it was inaugurated by them while 
the Confederate Commissioners, with the olive-branch of peace 
in their hands, were at the seat of the General Government ; 
and were given to understand by those in authority there, that 
Fort Suintcr, which became the scene of the first conflict of 
anus, would, at an early day, be peacefully evacuated by the 
Federal troops then holding it. The war was inaugurated, if 
not begun, when the hostile fleet set out for Charleston for the 
purpose of reinforcing that fort, "/bw aut nefasP Hallam has 
well said, that the "aggressor in a war is not the first who uses 
force, but the first wlio renders force necessary." And so the 
facts of history will ever show how and by whom this late terri- 
ble and most lamentable war was inaugurated as well as by 
whom it was legun. They will show who were the actual 



KEPLY TO JUDGE NICHOLAS. 45 

aggressors, and wlio first violated the organic principles and 
laws of our American system of Self-Govcrnment by the people. 

Whatever may be the ultimate results of this war, so far as 
the fate of Constitutional Liberty on this continent is concerned, 
the responsibility of its inauguration can never be justly and 
truly charged uj)on the Seceding States. 

Their object in separating from their associates, with whom 
they considered they had been united in a Federal compact, was 
not only to remain in peace with them, but to preserve and 
peii^ctuate the principles of that Constitution which had demon- 
strated such wondrous results as a bond of Union between 
Sovereign States so long as its principles had been adhered to ; 
but which they apprehended, under erroneous construction, if 
not checked, would soon lead to consolidation and despotism. 

K they were right in their position that ours was fl Federal 
Government, then the authorities at Washington were the ag- 
gressors in inaugurating the war to prevent the exercise of the 
right of withdrawal ; if they were wrong in their position as to 
the character of the General Government ; if it, in fact, was not 
Federal in its nature and character, but was a Government with 
a consolidated sovereignty in the central head, then they were 
the aggressors in rendering the inauguration of the war neces- 
sary for the maintenance of central supi'cmacy. The whole 
matter of right or wrong in the beginning of the war, as well 
as its disastrous consequences, depends upon the great question, 
whether the General Government was a Federal Kepublic or 
not, and what, under the Constitution, was the true " orthodox 
State rights principle " to which Judge Nicholas refers, but does 
not enlighten the public upon. In other words, it depends 
upon the true answer to the question, where, under our system, 
does sovereignty reside ? Is it lodged in the General Govern- 
ment, or has it passed to the whole people of the United States 
as one aggregate mass, or does it still remain with the people 
of the several States as distinct political organizations ? 

The doctrine of the book is that sovereignty resides just 
where it did in 1776, 1778, and 1787 — that is, with the jyeojpU 
of the several States! It maintains that all that the States did 
by the adoption of the Constitution was to delegate, in trust, 



46 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

the exercise of certain specific and limited sovereign powers to 
the General Government, while they retained to themselves, 
severally, sovereignty itself, that great source from which all 
political powers emanate. 

This doctrine, I must insist, too, is not only the true doc- 
trine, but the orthodox doctrine upon the subject ; Judge Nich- 
olas' opinion to the contrary, notwithstanding. Upon the 
point of orthodoxy, in reference to this matter, I know of but 
one standard on the subject, and that is the Jefferson standard, 
erected and established in the first of Kentucky's great resolves 
of 1798. The doctrine of this chief apostle of State Rights and 
human rights, then announced, rescued and saved the country 
from consolidation and centralism in 1801. Under the opera- 
tion of this most orthodox principle so established, with the 
general and tacit acknowledgment of its correctness by all the 
Departments of the Government, we increased, grew, and pros- 
pered for sixty years as no nation on earth ever did before. 
"WTiatever disturbances temporarily marred the harmony of the 
general system in the interval upon the subjects of tariffs, in- 
ternal improvements, the status of the African pojnilation, etc., 
grew out of departures, or attempted departures, in the Federal 
Administrations from the standard thus erected by Jefterson as 
to the nature and extent of the powers of the Federal Govern- 
ment. Tlie more nearly the principles taught by him were 
adhered to, the more prosperous and happy the nation wfts in all 
its parts and members. 

I use the word nation in this connection purposely ; for, 
notwithstanding the very great abuse of this word, in very 
recent times, we are nevertheless a nation in a very proper use 
of that term. Far was it from my object in the argument, in 
the volume referred to by Judge Nicholas, to show that " the 
United States do not constitute a nation," as I have seen it 
stated by some writer, in what he was pleased to consider a 
review of the work. The great object with me, on the contrary, 
■was to show not only that we are a nation, but ichat sort of a 
nation we are ! It is most clearly demonstrated in that argu- 
ment that we are not a nation of incUinduals, blended in a 
common mass, with a consolidated sovereignty over the whole ; 



REPLY TO JUDGE NICHOLAS. 47 

but it is shown with equal clearness that we are a nation, the 
constituent elements or members of which are separate and 
distinct political organizations, States, or Sovereignties ! 

It is shown that ours is a conventional nation ! — one created 
by compact. All federal republics, and all confederations be- 
tween separate and distinct sovereign powers, are conventional 
nations. "We were a nation under the first Articles of Confede- 
ration, and we are just such a nation now — not a nation of one 
people or one political organization, but a nation of several dis- 
tinct political organizations. We are a " confederated nation," 
as Washingtoa properly styled the present Union. That is, a 
nation of States, or, what is the same thing, a nation of nations ! 
— Hence the appropriateness of the motto adopted by the fathers 
to express the idea of the work — " E i^luribus unum^ 

In this sense we are not only a nation, but a nation in the 
highest and grandest type that the world ever saw. It rises 
above the simple to the complex form. 

It is, indeed, in many respects, a peculiar nation, even in 
its complex form ; differing from all other nations of its own 
type in many of its most striking charactei'istics. These peculiar 
features of its structure place it far in advance of all other Con- 
federate Republics in its wise provisions for the preservation 
of free institutions, if it be but rightly administered. The most 
important of these features is the new principle w^hich it intro- 
duced in the plan of federal unions, of permitting the common 
government, the conventional power or nation, to execute its 
delegated powers, within their limited sphere, directly upon the 
citizens of the several States, or smaller nationalities composing 
it. 

This new idea of so constituting a Federal Republic as to 
make of its separate members " one nation as to all Foreign 
concerns, and to keep them distinct as to Domestic ones," with 
a division of the powers delegated into " Legislative, Executive, 
and Judicial departments," with a perfect machinery of 
government to operate within prescribed limits in the execution 
of the delegated powers, constitutes the most striking difference 
between our present Federal Union and all former republics of 
its class. It marks the greatest stride of progress in free insti- 



48 THE EEVIEWERS EEYIEWED. 

tutions ever before made. It is tliis wliicli lias so impressed the 
minds and excited the admiration of intelligent foreigners in 
contemplating the wonderful workings of the American system. 
This is the feature to which the learned and philosophic De 
Tocqueville refers when, speaking of our Constitution, he 
says : 

" This Constitution, which may at first be confounded with the federal 
constitutions which have preceded it, rests in truth upon a wholly novel 
theory, which may be considered as a great discovery in modern science. 
. , . . And this difference produced the most momentous conse- 
quences." 

Of the same feature Lord Brougham has recorded his opinion 
in the following words of high import : 

" It is not at all a refinement that a Federal Union should be formed ; 
this is the natural result of men's joint operations in a very rude state of 
society. But the regulation of such a Union upon preestablished prin- 
ciples, the formation of a system of government and legislation in which 
the different subjects shall be, not individuals, but States, the application 
of legislative principles to such a body of States, and the devising means 
for keeping its integrity as a Federacy while the rights and powers of the 
individual States are maintained entire, is the very greatest refinement in 
social policy to which any state of circumstances has ever given rise, or to 
which any age has ever given birth." — Brougham's Political Philosophy, 
Vol. 3, p. 336. 

This grand conception of so forming, modelling, and consti- 
tuting our Union of States, which so impressed De Tocqueville, 
and which Lord Brougham considered " the very greatest re- 
finement in social policy " " to which any age has ever given 
birth," originated with Mr. Jefferson. It came from the same 
master-mind whose master hand drew the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence in 177G, and in 1798 set forth with so' much clearness 
and power the true, if not at j^resent orthodox principles of the 
whole structure of our Federal organization, in the entire series 
of Kentucky's famous Eesolutions, before referred to, and which 
were so thoroughly endorsed and established by the country in 
1801. To the administration of the Government in conformity 
with these princi^Dles, or with but slight departure from them, 
the " momentous consequences '' spoken of by De Tocqueville, 



EEPLY TO JUDGE NICHOLAS. 40 

distinguishing our unparalleled carer, for sixty years, in growth, 
prosperity, happiness, and real greatness, are mainly attributable. 
And now, Messrs. Editors, do you ask, Cui hono ? AVhy so 
much written upon the dead issues of the past, when questions 
of so much magnitude of a practical character press upon the 
public mind ? If so, the reply is twofold. First, to vindicate 
the truth of history, which is itself a high duty on the part of 
every one who has it in his power to do it ; and, in tlie second 
place, to show the people of these States, in this vindication, 
not only the true cause, the real " causa catisans,^^ of the late 
war, but the real cause of their present troubles. The Federal 
machinery for the last ten years has been abnormal in its action. 
It must be brought back to the JefFersonian doctrines, and 
made to conform in its workings with the organic principles of 
its structure, before there can possibly be a return of the days 
of peace, harmony, prosperity, and happiness which formerly 
marked our course. There is no other hope for constitutional 
liberty on this continent. Judge Nicholas may " dream 
dreams" about another Constitutional Amendment, providing 
a new mode of electing the President, but the remedy lies -in 
no such device as that. It lies simply in bringing back the 
Government in its administration to original first principles. 
This is to be done, not by Secession, however rightful and effi- 
cient a remedy that might be. That is abandoned. Nor is it to be 
done by force or violence of any kind, except the force of reason 
and the powxr of truth. It is to be done, if at all, at the ballot- 
box. Free institutions are more generally lost than established or 
strengthened by a resort to physical force. They are eminently 
the achievement of virtue, patriotism, and reason. That our 
institutions, and even nominal form of government, are now in 
great danger, the prudent, sagacious, and wise everywhere vir- 
tually admit. An able editorial in your own paper, not long 
since, put the pertinent and grave question, "Whither are we 
drifting ? " To this question I take the occasion, for one, to 
give you a direct and positive answer. "VVe are drifting to con- 
solidation and empire, and will land there at no distant period 
as certainly as the sun will set this day, unless the peojile of the 
several States awake to a proper appreciation of the danger, 
4 



50 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

and save tliemselves from the impending catastrophe by arrest- 
ing the present tendency of public affairs. This they can 
properly do only at the ballot-box. All friends of Constitu- 
tional Liberty, in every section and State, must imite in this 
grand effort. They must seriously consider, and even recon- 
sider many questions to which they have given but slight atten- 
tion heretofore. They must acquaint themselves with the 
principles of their Government, and provide security for the 
future by studying and correcting the errors of the past. 

This is the only hope, as I have stated, for the continuance 
of even our present nominal form of government. Depend 
upon it, there is no difference between consolidation and em- 
pire ! J^o difference between centralism and imperialistn ! The 
end of either, as well as all of these, is the overthrow of liberty 
and the establishment of despotism. I give you the words of 
truth in great earnestness — words which, however received or 
heeded now, will be rendered eternally true by the develop- 
ments of the future. 

-Yours, most respectfully, 

Alexandee H. Stephens. 



II. — Rejoinder of Judge Nicholas. 

Mr. Stephens, in reponse to my former number, complains 
of injustice done him by my "condensed extracts" from his 
book. The sole object in the condensation was to attain that 
brevity so indispensable in newspaper discussion. If it has been 
so unsuccessful as to make him fancy even that injustice has 
been done him, I must make the amende of an am])le apology 
and the expression of sincere regret. 

He now says that the Federal Government " must be brought 
back to the Jeffersonian doctrines, and made to confonn in its 
workings with the organic principles of its structure, before 
there can possibly be a return of the days of peace, harmony, 
prosperity, and happiness which formerly marked our course. 
There is no other hope for constitutional liberty on this con- 
tinent. . . . This is to be done, not by secession, however right- 
ful and efficient a remedy that might be. That is abandoned \ 



EEJOim)ER OF JUDGE NICHOLAS. 



51 



Nor IS It to be done by force or violence of any Idnd, except the 
torce of reason and the power of truth. It is to be done if at 
all, at the ballot-box." In another place he speaks of '"the 
Sovereign Right of Secession as the only check and barrier 
against the usurpation of undelegated power on the part of the 
General Government." 

Whilst thus conceding that the ballot-box is the onlv remedy 
or the restoration of the prostrate Constitution, he tikes care 
to claim that the only valuable restoration must be accompanied 
by recognition of the right of secession as a part of the onlv 
orthodox principle of State-rights. Nor does he insist upon this 
alone for the protection of State-rights, but involves the indi- 
vidual rights of citizens in the same category, declaring, "the 
Sovereign Right of Secession as the only check and ^barrier 
against the usui-pation of undelegated power." 

Concurring most heartily in the great necessity for a restora- 
tion of the Constitution through the ballot-box, and in view of 
the great influence which Mr. Stephens has at the South the 
propriety and expediency of these utterances of his becomes an 
important, living issue, well worthy the serious consideration 
ot all who sincerely desire a speedy restoration of the Constitu- 
tion. The remedy being exclusively in the ballot-box, there 
must be concert of action, if not identity of proclaimed views, 
JN orth and South, in the party attempting the restoration. Any 
recognition direct or indirect of the right of secession must be 
a great obstacle in obtaining such concert of action, as there are 
not probably five hundred men at the North who believe in or 
are at all willing to concede such a right. If, as he says, that 
right as a remedy is abandoned, where the expediency or policy 
tor thus pertinaciously insisting upon its legitimacy, where it 
will require all the suasion that can be used to make the peoi.le 
of the North believe that ii is veritably abandoned, and is not 
to contmue the aim of a ceaseless controversy at the South, and 
ot all those elsewhere who claim the protection of orthodox 
btate-nghts as a healing motive for the restoration of the Con- 
stitution. 

The verity of this being a living issue consists in the obvious 
necessity of influential men at the South doing what they can 



62 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

to obviate tlie injury wliicli tliese utterances of Mr. Stephens 
Avill cause both North and South, if they remain uncontradicted, 
as a true exposition of Southern sentiment. No hearty coopera- 
tion at the Nortli for a restoration of the Constitution can be 
rationally expected so long as it is even suspected that, in the 
pursuit of constitutional restoration. Southern men are looking 
to it as a means for the ultimate recognition of the right of 
secession. These utterances are as ill-advised as was the dis- 
astrous interference with the New York convention by unj)ar- 
doned Southern generals. 

If Southern men of influence concur with him in the opinion 
that the right of secession is the only barrier against Federal 
usurpation, then they can have little motive for aiding Constitu- 
tion restoration ; its great purpose being our restoration to the 
protection of that legitimate barrier against usurpation which is 
sufficient, according to the former creed of all lovers and ad- 
mirers of the Constitution. 

So far from there being any chance of ever revolutionizing 
the anti-secession sentiment of the North, it is the belief of men 
fully as sagacious as Mr. Stephens on questions of practical states- 
manship, that if a National Convention for revising the Constitu- 
tion be held ten or twenty years hence, not a voice will be 
raised in it — no, not even from South Carolina — ^for the direct 
recognition of the right of secession. Instead of establishing 
such a loose impracticability as a form of government, the danger 
is altogether the other way ; that is, the increase of territory and 
population, by demonstrating the necessity of strong govern- 
ment, will induce public sentiment in favor of one that will be 
unnecessarily strong. As things now are, there seems to be a 
disposition on the part of men of Mr. Stephens' stamp to waive, 
for the present at least, the right of secession as an impracticable 
dogma, resting, as it does, upon a non-exin-essed, but purely 
inferential, hjqiothesis. But that m truth should constitute no 
reason fur withholding a total abnegation of the dogma whose 
falsity is proved by the admission of its impracticability. If the 
right of secession were distinctly recognized in the Constitution, 
it would never be used for any available purpose. If, for in- 
stance, Louisiana, Kentucky, or Pennsylvania were to exerci^,e 

I 



ME. STEPHENS' SUR-REJOINDER. 



53 



tlie right by declaring its independence, the only result would 
be givmg the Government the trouble of declaring war a-ainst 
It and conquering its reiinnexation as foreign territory'' m 
statesman of ordinary practical sagacity can doubt this. " 
^ As to ultimate sovereignty and paramount allegiance, there 
IS no need for diving into the abstractions of political metapln-s- 
ics for ascertaining M^hat they arc in reference to American 
citizens. They both belong to the Federal Constitution All 
ot us who have passed through office, Federal or State, have 
bound ourselves to that supremacy and allegiance by a solemn 

Oatil. 

_ As to orthodox State rights, they consist of such power as 
IS neither granted to the Federal Government nor forbid to the 
btates by the Constitution, with a plainly-implied negation of 
any right to nnllify or secede, which negation is to be taken as 
part of what is forbidden to the States. 

State rights are very important and sacred, but not more so 
than the mdiWdual rights of citizens. Politically speakin- the 
sacredness of both rests mainly on the consecration givenThem 
by the nation in the Constitution. 

III.— Me. Stephens' Suk-eejoinder to Judge Xicholas. 

Liberty Hall, ) 

Crawfordville, Ga., June 23, ] 869. ) 

^J^essrs.EditorsoftheNatwnalIntelligencer,Wa8Ungton,D.C.: 
Gentleme.^^ : You will please allow me, I trust, a few words 
m rejoinder to Judge Nicholas. It is not my purpose or inten- 
tion to protract a useless controversy with him. Discussions 
are seldom instructive, or even entertaining, when the positions 
or ''utterances'' of one side are either not comprehended, or 
not fully and feirly set forth by the other. 

In his response to my former letter correcting the statement 
m his ''condensed extracts" from the book referred to, as to 
my position therein assumed, touching the inauguration of the 
late war, etc., he makes all the amende and apology that was 
expected. This, in substance, is, that he saw no difference be- 



54 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

tween the position in the book and the one assigned in tlie 
"condensed extracts ; " and that if I fancied there was any, he 
sincerely regrets it, etc. To your readers, who now have both 
fully before them, no further comments are necessary — not even 
on the amende and apology as made. There that matter may 
rest ; and if he had stopped there himself, I should not have 
asked your indulgence for any further hearing. 

Eut, in his response, he takes occasion to comment upon 
certain utterances (as he styles them) of mine in that letter, and, 
in these comments, is quite as much at fault in quoting from 
the letter as he was in his " condensed extracts " from the book. 
This error was quite as unintentional on his part, no doubt, as 
the others ; still it is of too grave a character to be allowed to 
pass unnoticed. 

In his comments upon the letter the following paragraph 

appears : 

"He (alluding to me) now says that the Federal Government 'must be 
brought back to the Jeffersonian doctrines, and made to conform in its 
workings with the organic principles of its structure, before there can 
possibly be a return of the days of peace, harmony, prosperity, and happi- 
ness which formerly marked our course. There is no other hope for Con- 
stitutional Liberty on this continent. . . . This is to be done, not by Seces- 
sion, however rightful and efficient a remedy that might be. Tliat is 
abandoned ! Nor is it to be done by force or violence of any kind, except 
the force of reason and the power of truth. It is to be done, if at all, at 
the ballot-box.' " 

In all this I am quoted correctly enough. But the next 
sentence is as follows : 

" In another place he speaks of ' the Sovereign Right of Secession as 
the only check and barrier against the usurpation of undelegated power 
on the part of the General Government.' " 

The comments then go on, with a great deal of misplaced 
r]ietoric, to demolish this position, which is his own, and not 
mine ; or at least one which ho assigns to me, but which I 
never assumed. No such utterance emanated from me. What 
I did say was this : 

" If the facts of our history be as set forth in the volume referred to, 
(and the world is challenged to disprove them,) then the conclusions to 



MR. STEPHEXS' SUR-REJOIXDER. 55 

which they lead are inevitable, even though they lead to a couiplctc jws^i- 
ficatwn of the sovereign riglit of secession, as the only sure check and 
barrier against the usuri)ation of undelegated power on the part of the 
General Government." 

The sentence immediately i^receding is in these words: "Of 
course I sjDeak of matters ante lellum:' 

The proposition, therefore, as stated bj me, even Judo-e 
Nicliolas, if he will study it closely, will, as a logician, hardly 
venture to deny. 

As an investigator of truth, if he had been inclined to avoid 
the conclusion, (as matters stood anU helium, of course,) he 
would have seen that this could only be done by a successful 
attack upon the facts ; and not by resorting to the expedient of 
severing the sentence, and even distorting the conclusion, as it 
appears in its proper connection. 

Secession, before the war, was regarded by many of the 
ablest men at the South— men whose patriotism is unquestion- 
able—as the only sure check and barrier in the last resort 
against usurpations of undelegated power ; but, since its trial, 
not one is to be found who considers it a practical remedy for 
Federal wrongs of any sort. I therefore distinctly stated in 
another, and in the after part of the letter, that this remedy, 
however rightful under the system it might be, had been aban- 
doned. This clearly appears from his own quotations from the 
letter ;^ but it does not appear from those quotations, as they 
stand in his response, that it was in the after part of the letter, 
when I was speaking of matters as they stand since the war. 

When I stated that Secession had been abandoned by the peo- 
ple of the Southern States, I meant all that I said, and uttered 
nothing but the truth. Its abandonment M-as accepted in good 
faith as one of the results of the war. It is no longer looked 
to, in any contingency, as a practical remedy or check against 
any usurpations or abuses of power on the part of the Federal 
Government. This abandonment on their part has been mani- 
fested in every form in which public as well as private honor 
can be pledged. All the States in their conventions have, with- 
out equivocation, given it an emphatic abandonment. Even the 
Southern Generals, in the New York Convention, last year, to 



THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 



Avlioni such an unkind allusion is made by Judge l^icholas, gave 
their pledged honor to this abandonment by unanimously sus- 
taining the platform of principles then announced. Whether 
they were ''unpardoned'' or not, their individual honor and 
integrity as men were certainly untarnished and unsullied, far 
beyond the reach of all impeachment or reproach. This flin^^ 
of Judge Nicholas at the Southern Generals was, as it seems to 
me, no less unkind than unjust. Why he should have applied 
to them the epithet of "unpardoned," I know not; for, if I am 
correct in my recollection, the imputation is utterly without 
foundation in fact. 

No utterance of mine, therefore, presents to the people of 
t^ie North or South the question of Secession as a living issue. 
This IS but the work of the imagination on the part of Judge 
Nicholas. I opposed it as an exrpedient remedy at the timelt 
was resorted to, though I believed it to be a rightful one. And 
though I believe it to be a rightful one, I did not believe it to 
be the only one, much less the surest or the lest one. I then 
thought, and still think, that there were other remedies much 
more practicable and expedient. Among these were appeals to 
the good sense, virtue, intelligence, and patriotism of the peo- 
ple of the several States, and earnest invocations to them to 
adliere to the principles of the Constitution, as the x^alladium 
ot tlie common rights and interests of us all. The utterances 
now complained of are but appeals and invocations of this char- 
acter. 

Representative Governments under no form can be main- 
tamed by any people long who have not the intelligence to un- 
derstand, the patriotism to approve, the virtue to maintain in- 
violate Its turms and principles as established. In arrivino- at a 
correct knowledge of these, under our complex system, XoUch 
thejm^e must do if they would preserve their free institutions 
under it, there is no necessity for a resort to "political meta- 
physics as Judge Nicholas intimates, or metaphysics of anv 
sort. Iseither is it a question involving any sort of abstrac- 
tions. It IS a question purely o^ facts, of unquestioned and 
unquestionable historic records. These clearly show that it is 
as I maintain, a Federal Ecpublic-all its powers being dele^ 



MR. STEPHENS' SUE-REJOINDER. 57 

gated, specific, and limited ; and that there is in it no such fea- 
ture or principle as a consolidated sovereignty, with general and 
unlimited powers in the Federal head, as maintained by those 
who have lately controlled its action, under their construction, 
to such mischievous and disastrous results. Shall this abnormal 
action of the Government be corrected by the people at the 
ballot-box ? Shall the administration be brought back to the 
standard of principles so generally recognized in the better days 
of our history, or shall it be perjnitted to go on in its present 
course until even the name of Republic is ignored ? 
This is the living issue I presented ! 

It is now the chief practical question before the people of 
the several States. It involves, on the one side. Constitutional 
Liberty, as established by the Fathers; on the other, Consolida- 
tion, Absolutism, and Monarchy of some sort or other. There 
is no middle ground — no half-way house — ^between the alterna- 
tives of this issue as above stated. Between these the people 
must choose. They must take one side or the other. There 
are but two great political principles in antagonism in this coun- 
try at this time. The one is for the continued maintenance of 
free institutions by popular government ; the other is for an 
overthrow of these, and the establishment of monarchy. The 
crown has already been paraded for the fascination of the un- 
reflecting multitude, with its guileful promises as to the nature 
and character of that peace which empire will bring ! 

It is cpiite immaterial, therefore, whether five hundred men 
at the North can be found who will concede what Judge Nich- 
olas so emphatically denies that they would or not. No such 
issue as he represents was presented to them by me. But, to 
come to real, practical considerations, is it true that five hun- 
dred men at the North cannot be found who will sustain the 
nature and character of our Government as expounded by the 
Fathers ; and under whose administration of it, according to 
the principles enunciated by them, the country grew and pros- 
pered for sixty years as no other country ever did before ? Is 
it true that five hundred men cannot be found there to main- 
tain its complex character as declared by Washington, and ex- 
pounded by Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, to say nothing of 



58 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

others? Is it true tliat five liundred men cannot be found 
tlirougliout the IS'ortliern States to endorse the following senti- 
ments and earnest utterances of General Jackson, upon the 
same subject, in his Farewell Addi-ess to the people of the 
United States : 

*' It is well kno^m that there have always been those among us who 
wish to enlarge the powers of the General Government ; and experience 
would seem to indicate that there is a tendency on the part of this Gov- 
ernment to overstej) the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution. 
Its legitimate authority is abundantly sufficient for all the purposes for 
which it was created ; and, its poicers leing expressly enumerated, there can 
be no justijicatioii for claiming any thing leyond them. Every attempt 
to exercise power beyond tJicse limits should be promjitly and firmly op- 
l^osed, for one evil example will lead to other measures still more mischiev- 
ous ; and, if the principle of constructive powers, or supposed advan- 
tages, or temporary circumstances, shall ever be permitted to justify the 
assumption of a jDower not given 'by the Constitution, the General Govern- 
ment will, lefore long, absorb all the powers of legislation, and you will 
have, in effect, but one consolidated government. From the extent of our 
country, its diversified interests, different pursuits, and different habits, it 
is too obvious for argument that a single consolidated government would be 
wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its interests ; and every 
friend of our free institutions should be always prepared to maintain, 
unimpaired and in full vigor, the rights and sovereignty of the States, and 
to confine the action of the General Government strictly to the sphere of its 
appropriate duties." 

General Jackson was in no way tainted with " the pernicious 
dogma of Secession," as I suppose Judge Nicholas will readily 
admit, whatever he may think of Mr. Jefterson and the Ken- 
tucky resolutions of 1798. Are my utterances at all inconsist- 
ent with the utterances of General Jackson's solemn w^arnings, 
even touching the sovereignty of the several States ? 

The hint of Judge [Nicholas as to the propriety and expe- 
diency of such utterances coming from me is duly considered 
and properly appreciated ; but, in reply to all he has said on 
that point, I have this to say to him ; If I were a prisoner, and 
under arrest, with no hope of '■'■ f)ardon^'' I should not feel re- 
lieved from my sense of high moral obligation, to give, though 
unasked, counsel of safety, if I thought it important, even to 



ME. STEPHENS' SUR-REJOINDEPw. 59 

my captors and accusers in a time of imminent danger, whether 
it was heeded or not. 

Paul, while in custody as a rebel, so-called, on his way to the 
judgment-scat of Caesar, did not hesitate to give warning for 
the safety of those who had him in charge, as well as for the 
ship on which they were all embarked. Had his admonition 
been heeded, a wreck might have been avoided, and notwith- 
standing " the Centurion believed the master and owner of the 
ship more than these things which were spoken by Paul," and 
went on in their course heedless of his warning ; yet no sense 
of its impropriety kept him from again standing " forth in their 
midst" when all hope of the ship's safety was gone, and warn- 
ing them once more how only their lives could be saved. This 
time his advice was taken, and the whole crew were saved, 
though the ship was lost. Neither shall I abstain, in a case 
where imminent dangers of much greater magnitude threaten — 
where not only the future destiny of the whole countr}^, with 
its liberties, but with these the surest hopes of mankind, are 
jeoparded — from uttering words of admonition and warning, 
however unseemly, unproper, or even impertinent they may be 
deemed to be by Judge Nicholas, or ever so many other equally 
clever and equally well-meaning people. 

In conclusion, and in taking my leave of Judge Nicholas, 
unless it becomes necessary again to make other corrections of 
matters wherein he may speak of me, etc., I will barely add, 
(with thanks to you for the courtesy of the use of your col- 
umns, which I trust I have not abused), that if it be true that 
what I really said in the former communication, and not what 
he attributes to me, will have the eftect of doing injury at the 
North or South, as he intimates, it only shows the hopelessness 
of our condition, and the inevitableness of tho common doom 
of the liberties of both sections. The liberties of the North 
cannot long survive the loss of those of the South ; and if I had 
supposed the condition of the Northern mind was as it might 
be inferred to be from his representations of it, I certainly 
should not have made any such utterances as I did, I should 
have refrained from making them, however, from no such sense 
of the impropriety in my doing it as he intimates ; but I should 



60 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

have been governed in witliliolding tliem entirely by those 
promptings of humanity which not only debar all excitements, 
but rigidly forbid the slightest unguarded movement, or even 
an audible whisper, that may possibly disturb the quiet repose 
of a dying friend — one in extremis, in artioulo mortis, past all 
power of reaction, all effort, a,ll remedy, all hope. 

How this really is, the developments of the future will de- 
termine. "What I have said, however, is upon record ; and 
Judge Nicholas, you, and the country may be assured that 
these developments will bring with them the realization of the 
fact that these utterances will remain forever as living truths. 
Yery respectfully, 

Alexander H. Stephens. 



AETICLE III. 

THE CURTIS CONTROVERSY ON MR. WEBSTER S MODIFIED VIEWS. 

I. — Hon. Geokge T. Curtis' Review of the Work. 

A CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW OF THE LATE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES : 
Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results. Presented in a Series of Collo- 
quies at Liberty Hall. By Alexander H. Stephens. In two vols. Vol. 1. 

The author of the book, the title of which is placed at the 
head of this article, is one of the representatives of a lost and 
ruined cause. In that cause he has suffered; suffered with 
heroic fidelity to an idea respecting the nature of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. lie is a gentleman for whose pa- 
triotism and j)urity of purpose I entertain entire respect. I 
could not, however prompted, treat otherwise than with ten- 
derness, those whom the dread arbitrament of civil war has 
stricken dowm, and whom I believe to have been conscientious 
in their efforts to establish the Southern Confederacy. I 
learned long ago to regard the question of the right of State 
secession from the Union as one on which men could honestly 
differ from the views that have generally prevailed in the 
!N^orth ; and now that the doctrine has been, after every form 
of forensic discussion, rendered practically obsolete by the ter- 
rible trial of arms, I shall be, I trust, the last person in the 
land to utter a word with intent to injure the feelings of those 
who stand on the lost side of this great ISTational controversy. 
But I may be permitted to express the astonishment with which 
I have read a portion of Mr. Stephens' recent publication, in 
which he claims that Mr. "Webster, in the later years of his life, 
changed his opinions respecting the nature of the Constitution, 
and became a convert, or almost a convert, to the views of 



G2 THE REYIEAVERS EEVIEWED. 

State sovereignty, on which the right of State secession from 
the Union was claimed by Mr. Calhoun and his disciples as a 
right iinder the Constitution. This suggestion, I venture to 
say, is a very novel one to Mr. Webster's personal friends in 
this part of the country. Considering the source from which 
it comes, and the manner in which it has been put forth, it 
claims their attention. It ought to be answered by some one. 
There is no living representative of Mr. Webster's blood of an 
age to undertake this duty. Of his four literary executors, 
to whom he confided the care of his name and fame by 
testamentary and other injunctions, two alone survive. Of 
these I am one ; and circumstances which I need not detail, 
have devolved it upon me to examine Mr. Stephens' proofs, and 
to submit to the public the proper refutation of his position in 
regard to Mr. Webster. 

Let it be observed, however, that I enter into no vindication 
of Mr. Webster's opinions as they were expressed in 1830-'33, 
and as they have always been understood in this region to have 
been held to the day of his death. I make no issue with Mr. 
Stephens or any one else as to the correctness of the doctrine 
which has, until now, been regarded as the doctrine of Mr. 
Webster, although I never was able to see how the opposite 
doctrine is consistent w^ith the fects respecting the establishment 
of the Constitution and its unquestionable language. But 
M'ith the main purpose of Mr. Stephens' book I have now 
nothing to do. In that book he has put forth the assertion 
that Mr. Webster changed his opinions ; and, if this is true, 
Mr. Webster is really to be cited as an authority for the sup- 
posed right of State secession. This assertion, and the 
proofs on Avhich it is made, I propose to examine, and nothing 
else. 

That I may do no injustice to Mr. Stephens' assertion, I 
proceed to quote his words. Speaking of the debate in 1833, 
in which he thinks Mr. Calhoun not only annihilated Mr. Web- 
ster, but convinced him that he had been wrong in 1830, Mr. 
Stephens observes (p. 387)': 

" The power and force of this speech (Mr. Calhoun's) must have been, 
felt by Mr. Webster himself. He was a man of too much reason and logic 



MK. CURTIS' EEVIEW. 63 

not to have felt it. This opinion I am more inclined to from the fact that 
he not only did not attempt a general reply to it at the time, but from the 
further fact that in after-life he certainly, to say the least of it, greatly 
modified the opinions held by him in that debate." 

In the next chapter, Mr. Stephens' interlocutor havhig called 
for proofs, he proceeds to give them. He then (p, 405) after 
citing, as the latest evidence, a speech made by Mr. Webster in 
1851, observes : 

" That this speech shows a modification of the opinions expressed in 
his speech of 1833, must be admitted by all. He had grown older and 
wiser. The speech of 1851 was in his maturer years, after the nature of the 
Government had been more fully discussed by the men of his ovrn genera- 
tion than it had been in 1830 and 1833. He was too great a man, and had 
too great an intellect, not to see the truth when it was presented, and he 
was too honest and too patriotic a man not to proclaim a truth when he 
saw it, even to an unwilling people." 

The proofs on -which Mr. Stephens relies, to show that Mr. 
Webster in 1851 had reversed the opinions of his whole pre- 
vious life, and ha'd come to hold the Constitution to be a " com- 
pact between Sovereign States," will be fully stated here- 
after. Before examining them, however, it will occur, perhaps, 
to the reader to ask how it happens that Mr. Webster should 
have reached a change of opinion so extraordinary as to amount 
to a total renunciation of that which constituted the chief glory 
of his own great fame, and yet should have given to his coun- 
trymen no more distinct notice that he had done so than is to 
be gained from the evidence on which Mr. Stephens relies. It 
will certainly be admitted to be true that he thought himself 
right in 1830, in the celebrated controversy with Mr. Hayne. 
But this is not all. It is likewise true that the views he then 
maintained respecting the nature of the Constitution were 
accepted by a large majority of the nation, of all parties, as a 
true ex-position, and that they were adopted by General Jack- 
son's administration as the basis of its action when it became 
necessary afterwards to resist the threatened Nullification in 
South Carolina. General Jackson's proclamation of 1832 
against the Nullifiers was written by his Secretary of State, 
Edward Livingston, and it followed, throughout, the doctrine 



G4 THE EEVIEWEES KEVIEWED. 

maintained by Mr. "Webster in his reply to Hay no, in 1830. So 
remarkable was this adoption of Mr. Webster's argument, that 
popular opinion at that time regarded it as a manifest, but, of 
course, a very excusable plagiarism. Mr. Webster, when the 
proclamation was issued, was on his way to Washington, 
ignorant of what had occurred. At an inn in New Jersey he 
met a traveller just from AVashington. l^Teither of them was 
known to the other. Mr. Webster inquired the news. " Sir," 
said the gentleman, " the President has issued a proclamation 
against the Xullifiers, taken entirely from Mr. Webster's reply 
to Hayne." In the course of the ensuing session, and not long 
after Mr. Webster reached the Capital, it became necessary for 
the administration to act. Mr. Webster was in the opposition ; 
and, excepting in regard to the integrity of the Union and the 
just powers of the Government, there was a wide gnlf between 
the administration and him. He was absent from his seat for 
several days when the Force bill was abont to be introduced as 
an administration measure. A portion of General Jackson's 
original supporters hung back from that issue. At this juncture 
there was much inquiring among the President's friends in the 
House as to " where Mr. Webster was." At length a member 
of General Jackson's cabinet went to Mr. Webster's rooms, told 
him the nature of the bill about to be introduced, and asked 
him, as a public duty, to go into the Senate and defend the bill 
and the President. It is v/ell known to the whole country that 
Mr. Webster did so ; and it is known to me that General Jack- 
son personally thanked him for his powerful aid ; that many of 
the President's best friends afterwards sought to make a union 
between him and Mr. Webster, and that nothing continued to 
separate them but an irreconcilable difference of opinion about 
the questions relating to the currency. 

It is, in fi^ct, matter of historical certainty that Mr. Web- 
ster's opinions respecting the character of the Constitution, as 
maintained in 1830, shaped the course of the Government 
towards Nullification ; that they shaped the opinion of the 
country which rallied to the support of the administration ; that 
he himself, through his whole life, regarded his reply to Hayne 
as the most important of all his public efforts ; and that it was 



MR. CURTIS' REVIEW, 65 

the one that produced the widest and most enduring impression 
upon the ISIational intellect. "Whether lie was right or wrong, 
it is to him that we are to trace that great body of public con- 
victions which, ten years after he was laid in the tomb, enabled 
the Government of the United States to draw forth the energies 
of a people who would never have gone through the late civil 
war without those convictions, and finally to prevent the threat- 
ened disruption of the United States. Mr. Webster was not 
compelled to witness this sad spectacle ; but he foresaw the pos- 
sibility of its occurrence ; and he knew well that, if the issue did 
come in this terrible form, lie had prepared the intellect of his 
country with that which could alone justify and support the 
efforts that must be made. He knew always that his own fame 
was completely identified with the doctrine that regards the 
Constitution not as com^pact but as a law ; that in that great pos- 
tulate he had lived and acted until he had made it plain to all 
but the people of a section ; and that, if this opinion were to be 
renounced by him, it would be his clear duty to make that re- 
nunciation known in the most unequivocal terms. All this 
every man knows, too, who knows much of the history and 
feelings of Daniel Webster. Yet we are told that, in his " ma- 
turer years," he changed his opinions on this subject. Why, 
then, did he not say that he had changed ? Mr. Stephens gives 
him credit for moral grandeur of character. The credit is his 
due. He was never afraid of admitting that he had modified 
his opinions. His love of truth was more powerful than his 
love of himself. But I think I can tell Mr. Stephens why he 
did not inform us that he had changed these opinions. The 
reason is because he had not changed them ; because they were 
inseparable from the very structure of his intellect, and there- 
fore could not be renounced. He who wishes to see whether 
this is true, must compare the intellectual natures and mental 
characteristics of the two great antagonists, Webster and Cal- 
houn, and must observe how their respective modes of reasoning 
led to conclusions diametrically opposite. 

Mr. Stephens speaks of a change that came over Mr. Web- 
ster in his " maturer years." In 1830, when he electrified the 
country by his reply to Hayne, he was forty-eight years of age. 
5 



66 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

In 1833, wlien the debate witli Mr. Callioim occurred, he was 
fifty-one. In 1851, when Mr. Stephens thinks him more " ma- 
ture," and the subject had been " more fully discussed," he was 
sixty-nine, lie died on the 24th of October, 1852, in his 
seventy -first year. 

I am not aware that at any period of his life, Mr. Webster 
exhibited any material abatement of his intellectual powers. In 
the judgment of those who saw him most frequently and ob- 
served him most closely, there was less change in him from the 
age of fifty to the age of seventy than is common in men of . 
intellectual pursuits. He himself was sometimes observed, 
during the last ten years of his life, when called upon to ;nake 
some particular and unusual effort, to be a little anxious con- 
cerning the comparisons that men might make of him with 
what ho had formerly been. Ko one, however, would say that 
the speech of the 7th March, 1850, exhibits any decay of intel- 
lectual strength, or that the fiimous <' Hulsemann letter " is less 
vigorous than any of his former productions. 

On the other hand, if we were to look for the period when 
his powers of all kinds were in their fullest vigor and highest 
development, we should unhesitatingly place it, in his case, as 
in that of most men, between the ages of forty and sixty. Mr. 
Stephens makes a great mistake, too, as it seems to me, in 
supposing that the nature of the Government had been more 
fully discussed after 1833, and before 1851, than it had been 
down to the time when Nullification was encountered. Noth- 
ing of any importance had been added to the Southern side of 
the controversy after 1833, nor has there been any thing new 
said or written on that side of the question since Mr. Hayne 
and Mr. Calhoun left it in their arguments of 1830 and 1833. 
If Mr. Webster ever thouglit that he had occasion to revise the 
subject, he certainly had nothing new to examine after 1833, 
for Mr. Calhoun had then exhausted his own side of the ques- 
tion, in one of the greatest argmnents he ever made, and all 
that he ever said afterwards Avas but a repetition of himself. 
Moreover, it would be an eiTor to imagine that Mr. Webster, 
in 1830, came to the discussion of this great question as to 
something which he had not previously studied. The debate 



MR. CURTIS' REVIEW. 67 

itself of that year sprang np suddenly ; but Mr. Webster's 
preparation for it bad been made long before tlie occasion 
arose, and he could have made the reply to Ilayne just as well 
as he did make it, at any time during the preceding ten years. 
To him there was no side of this question that needed to be ex- 
amined when he was called upon to encounter the doctrine of 
Nullilication ; and the proof of this is, that the second speech 
on Foote's resolution which contains the development of his 
doctrine respecting the nature of the Government and his re- 
ply to the whole of Mr. Ilayne's argument, was made from a 
brief prepared in a single night. This brief, covering but a 
few pages of ordinary letter paper, is now in my possession. 

Tliere is, too, a singular error of Mr. Stephens on which I 
desire to make a few observations before I quote his proofs of 
Mr. "Webster's change of opinions. He seems to imagine that 
Mr. Webster was staggered even in 1S33, and begun then to 
entertain doubts, in consequence of the " crushing and extin- 
guishing " speech of Mr. Calhoun. He says, without hesita- 
tion, that Mr. Webster made " no rejoinder " to Mr, Calhoun, 
but merely explained how he had used the term " constitutional 
compact " in 1830, and attempted to parry one or two of the 
blows " hut never made any set reply or rejoinder.''^ " Mr. Cal- 
houn stood master of the arena " (p. 387). Now the facts are 
these : 

The autumn of 1832 and the v/inter of 1833 witnessed the 
crisis of " Nullification." The revenue laws of the United 
States had been prostrated in South Carolina by a system of 
State law which directly obstructed the collection of any 
revenue whatever. It had become necessary for the President 
of the United States to act ; and that President was Andrew 
Jackson. His proclamation warned the nuUifiers that their 
acts were acts of " treason ; " and when Congress assembled in 
December, he asked for the passage of a law adapted to the 
exigency, to enable him to enforce the collection of the revenue. 
Tt became kfiown, very soon, that Mr. Webster intended to 
support the President in this course, notwithstanding their 
political differences on almost all other subjects. Mr. Calhoun 
taw what was impending, and after the introduction of the 



68 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

Force bill he offered in the Senate what he called a " plea in 
bar," consisting of his celebrated resolutions on the nature of 
the Union, embodying, in very terse and perspicuous language, 
the doctrine of the right of ITulliiication as a constitutional 
remedy. On the 11th of February, Mr. Clay announced in the 
Senate his j)ur]30se to introduce his Compromise bill to modify 
the tariff. This bill was introduced and was pending at the 
same time with the Force bill. On the 15th of February, the 
Force bill being under consideration, Mr. Calhoun commenced 
the great speech in which he resisted the passage of that bill, 
developed his views on the nature of the Constitution and the 
right of State IST unification, as embodied in his resolutions, 
and explained the attitude taken by South Carolina. The 
doctrine of this very able speech maintained the Union to be a 
confederacy of sovereign States, in contradistinction to a con- 
solidated government. Its argument was that the States, 
being sovereign and having reserved to themselves all powers 
not granted to the general government, had reserved, among 
others, the power of judging of any infractions of the " Fed- 
eral compact ; " which power, from the necessity of the ease, 
Mr. Calhoun said could exist nowhere else. He piaintained, 
therefore, that when a State, in its sovereign capacity, has 
solemnly pronounced an act of Congress to be unwarranted by 
the Federal Constitution, the paramount allegiance of her citi- 
zens is due to her authority, and she stands between the citi- 
zen and the State to protect him from the consequence of re- 
sistance. As an exposition of the doctrines of nullification, 
this speech was a much abler one than that of Mr. Hayne, 
which Mr. Webster answered in 1830. But let it be observed 
that this is not the speech which Mr. Stephens thinks annilii- 
lated Mr. "Webster, and to which the latter " made no rejoin- 
der." It was, however, a speech which contained the develop- 
ment of Mr. Calhoun's whole doctrine, and it was the one 
which Mr. Webster answered as soon as Mr. Calhoun had con- 
cluded. The answer stands in the third volume of Mr. Web- 
ster's works under the title " The Constitution not a compact 
between sovereign States." It comprehended and maintained 
the following propositions : 



MR. CURTIS' REVIEW. 69 

1. That the Constitution of tlic United States is not a 
league, confederacy, or compact between tlie people of the sev- 
eral States in their sovereign capacities ; but a government 
proper, founded on the adoption of the people, and creating 
direct relations between itself and individuals. 

2. That no State authority has power to dissolve these rela- 
tions ; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution ; and 
that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession 
without revolution. 

3. That there is a supreme law, consisting of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and acts of Congress passed in pur- 
suance of it, and treaties ; and that, in cases not capable of as- 
suming the character of a suit in law or equity. Congress must 
judge of, and finally interpret, this supreme law so often as it 
has occasion to pass acts of legislation ; and in cases capable of 
assuming, and actually assuming, the character of a suit, the 
Supreme Court of the United States is the final interpreter. 

4. That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify 
an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her limits, 
is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the general gov- 
ernment, and on the equal rights of other States ; a plain vio- 
lation of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolu- 
tionary in its character and tendency. 

On the 2Gth of February, Mr. Calhoun called up his own 
resolutions,, and commenced an elaborate reply to Mr. Web- 
ster, reasserting the doctrines of State nullification. "Whoever 
will examine this speech and compare it with that which Mr. 
Calhoun made on the 15th, will see that although the two are 
of about equal length, the latter one advanced little in the way 
of argument which is not contained in the former, to which Mr. 
"Webster had already replied. By this time the discussion 
turned in a considerable degree on the sense in which the 
speakers had used certain terms : and although Mr. Calhoun 
reasserted his own argument at length, he in fact added to it 
nothing that was important, although he restated it in a very 
clear, perspicuous, and logical method. If Mr. Webster was, 
or ought to have been " annihilated," or " convinced," those 
conditions ought to have happened to him after hearing Mr. 



70 THE EEVIEWERS EEVIEWED. 

Calhoun's speecli of the 15tli. But Mr. "Webster's answer to 
that speech — made immediately, it is true — does not read as if 
he had been impressed with the soundness of Mr. Calhoim's 
views, and his rejoinder to Mr. Calhoun's speech of the 26th 
shows quite plainly that, m Ids own judgment, he was tlien 
called upon to say but little more. That little, however, he 
put into a " nutshell." As the rejoinder is not long, and as 
it is not repeated in Mr. Webster's works, I quote it entire, 
that the reader may judge whether Mr. Calhoun had convinced 
Mr. Webster that this Union is a " compact between sovereign 
States." 

" As soon as Mr. Callioun had concluded, Mr. "Webster rose in reply. 
He said that, having already occupied so much of the time of the Senate 
on the general subject, he should not do more than to make a very few 
observations in reply to what the honorable member from South Carolina 
had now advanced. ' The gentleman', said Mr, W., ' does me injustice in 
suggesting the possibility that any remarks of mine could have been made 
for the purpose of obtaining favor in any quarter, by an appearance of 
hostility to him.' 

" [Mr. Calhoun rose and said he had only suggested it as a matter of 
possibility.] 

" ' I hope it is not even possible,' continued Mr. W., ' that my support or 
opposition of imiDortant measures should be influenced by considerations 
of that kind. Between the honorable member and myself personal rela- 
tions have always been friendly. We came into Congress now near twenty 
years ago, both ardent young men ; and, however widely we may have 
differed at any tirae on political subjects, our private intercourse has been 
one of amity and kindness.' 

" [Mr. Calhoun rose and said these remarks were just such as he him- 
self had intended to make.] 

" ' The honorable member considers my remarks on his use of the phrase 
" constitutional comj^act," as not well founded, and says he has my own 
authority against myself He quotes from my speech in 1830. But I did 
not on that or any occasion call the Constitution a constitutional com- 
pact. In the passage to which he refers I was speaking of one part of the 
agreement on which the Constitution was founded, viz., the agreement 
that tlie Slavcholding States should possess more than an equal propor- 
tion of Representatives. That, I observed, was matter of compact, sanc- 
tioned by the Constitution ; it was an agreement which, being adopted in 
the Constitution, may be well enough called a constitutional compact; 
but that is not equivalent to saying that the Constitution of the United 
States is nothing but a constitutional compact between sovereign States. 



MR. CURTIS' REVIEW. 71 

The gentleman must certainly remember that my main object on that oc- 
casion was to establish the proposition, stated in the same speech, that 
the Constitution was not a compact between the States, but a constitution 
established by the peoijle, with a government founded on popular elec- 
tion, and directly responsible to the people tlieuiselvcs. The honorable 
gentleman attemjits also to find an authority for his use of the word 
" accede." He says the same word was used by General Washington, in 
speaking of the adoption of the Constitution by North Carolina, It was 
so, and it is used by the biographer of Washington, also, in reference to 
the same occurrence; and although both, probably, adopted the same 
phrase from the pojjular language of the day, yet the language in that 
case was not, perhaps, improper. By the adojition of the Constitution, 
by nine States, the old confederacy was cftectually dissolved. North 
Carolina not having adopted it until after the government wont into op- 
eration, was out of the Union. She had, at that moment, no distinct con- 
nection with other States. The old Union was broken up, and she had 
not come into the new. There v/as propriety, therefore, perhaps, in call- 
ing her adoption of the Constitution an accession. Yet, when she after- 
ward adopted the Constitution, she used the same terms of ratification as 
the other States. "Accede" is unknown to all those ratifications, and to 
the Constitution itself. But the honorable gentleman insists that he can 
change that phraseology of his resolutions, so as to avoid my objections, 
and yet maintain their substantial sense and import. He says his first 
resolution may stand thus : ' 

" ' Resolved, That the people of the several States composing these 
United States are united as parties to a compact, under the title of the 
Constitution of the United States, which the people of each State rati- 
fied as a separate and sovereign community, each binding itself by its own 
particular ratification ; and that the Union, of which the said compact 
is the bond, is a union between the States ratifying the same.' 

"This is a change, it is true, but it is a mere verbal change. It rejects 
certain words, but adopts their exact synonyms. In his resolution he calls 
the Constitution a ' constitutional compact.' In the amended form which 
he now suggests, he calls it a ' compact, under the title of the Constitu- 
tion.' These are just the same thing. Both call it a compact, and a 
compact between sovereign communities, and in both the attemjit is to 
make the Constitution not one substantive thing, but merely the qualifica- 
tion of something else. Now, sir, the Constitution does not call itself a 
compact of any kind ; the people did not call it such when they ratified it. 
No State said 'We, as a sovereign community, accede to a Constitutional 
compact ; ' or, * We, as a sovereign community, ratify a compact under 
the title of a Constitution.' No State said one word about comjiact ; no 
State said one word about acting as a sovereign community. On the 
contrary, in each and every State the language is, that the conventions, 



72 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

in tlie name and by the authority of the people, ratify this Constitution 
or frame of o-overnmcnt. Neither of tlie resohitions, therefore, of the 
honorable member, nor this amended form of it, follows the official and 
authentic language applied to the transaction to which it refers. I again 
say, if he will follow that language, if he will state accurately what was 
done, and then state his proposed inference, that inference will be out of 
all sight from his premises. Let him say nothing of compact, because the 
peoi)le said nothing of it ; let him not assert that the people of the States 
acted as sovereign communities, because they have not said so. Let him 
describe what the people did in their own language. It will then stand 
that the people ratified this Constitution or frame of government. 

"Now, sir, the mere substitjition of this just and true phraseology 
strikes away the whole foundation of the gentleman's argument. He can- 
not stand a moment except on the ground of a compact between sovereign 
communities. Compact, therefore, and such a compact, must keep its 
place in his first resolution, or else his chain of reasoning breaks in the 
first link. He is, therefore, driven to the necessity of assuming what can- 
not be proved, and of giving a history of the formation of this Constitu- 
tion essentially diflerent from its true history. He is compelled to re- 
ject the language of the Constitution itself, and to reject also the 
language used by the people of every one of the States when they 
adopted it, and to lay the corner-stone of his whole argument on mere 
assumption. The honorable gentleman does not understand how the 
Constitution can have a compact or consent for its basis, and yet not be a 
compact between sovereign States. It appears to me the distinction is 
broad and plain enough. The people may agree to form a government ; 
this is assent, consent, or compact ; this is the social compact of European 
writers. When the government is formed, it rests on this assent of the 
governed ; that is, it rests on the assent of the people. The whole error 
of the gentleman's argument arises from the notion that the people, of 
their own authority, can make but one government, or that the people of 
all the States have not united, and cannot unite, in establishing a Consti- 
tution, connecting them together directly, as individuals, united under one 
government. He seems unwilling to admit, that whUe the people of a single 
State may unite together, and form a government for some purposes, the 
pco2)le of all the States may also unite together and form another govern- 
ment for other purposes. But what he will not thus admit appears to me 
to be the simple truth, the plain matter of fact, in regard to our political 
institutions. The honorable gentleman thinks, sir, that I overlooked a 
very important part of the Constitution, favorable to his side of the ques- 
tion. Ho says it is declared in the seventh article that the ratification of 
the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of 
tlie Constitution between the States ratifying the same. If I have over- 
looked this provision, sir, it is because it appears to me not to have that 
bearing on the question which the honorable gentleman supposes. The 



MR. CURTIS' REVIEW. 73 

honorable member has said, in one of his publications, that the word 
' States ' as used in the Constitution, sometimes means the States, in their 
coriJorative capacities or governments ; sometimes it means their territory, 
merely; and sometimes it means the people of the States. This is very 
true; and it is perfectly clear, that in the clause quoted, the word means 
the people of tlie States. The same clause speaks of the conventions of 
States ; that evidently means conventions of the people of the States ; else 
the whole provision would be absurd. All that this part of the Constitu- 
tion intended was simply to declare that, so soon as the people of nine 
States should adopt and ratify it, it should, as to these States, go into 
operation. The gentleman has concluded, sir, by declaring again, that 
the contest is between power on one side and liberty on tlie other — and 
that he is for liberty. All this is easily said. But what is that liberty 
whose cause he espouses ? It is liberty given to a part to govern the 
whole. It is liberty, claimed by a small minority, to govern and control 
the great majority. And what is the power which he resists ? It is the 
general power of the popular will ; it is the power of all the people, ex- 
ercised by majorities, in the Houses of the Legislature, in the form of 
which all free governments exercise power, ]ilr. President, turn this ques- 
tion over, and present it as we will — argue upon it as we may— exhaust 
upon it all the fountains of metaphysics — stretch over it all the meshes of 
logical or political subtlety — it still comes to this : Shall we have a general 
government ? Shall we continue the Union of the States under a govern- 
ment instead of a league ? This is the upshot of the whole matter ; be- 
cause, if we are to have a government, that government must act like other 
governments, by majorities, it must have this power, like other govern- 
ments, of enforcing its own laws and its own decisions ; clothed with au- 
thority by the people, and always responsible to the people, it must bo 
able tfo hold on its course unchecked by external interposition. According 
to the gentleman's view of the matter, the Constitution is a league ; accord- 
ing to mine, it is a regular popular government. This vital and all-im- 
portant question the people will decide, and in deciding it, they will deter- 
mine whether by ratifying the present Constitution and frame of govern- 
ment, they meant to do nothing more than to amend the articles of the old 
confederation." 

But it is time to quote the whole of Mr. Stephens' proofs 
of Mr. Webster's change of opinions. They consist of 

1. The assumption that Mr. Webster did not and could not 
reply to Mr. Calhoun's argument of 1833, and that he must 
have felt it to be unanswerable. 

2. An argument made by Mr. Webster in 1839, in the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, in the case of The Bank of 
Augusta vs. Earle. 



74 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

3. An opinion given by Mr. 'Webster to the Barings in 1839, 
respecting the capacity of the States to contract debts. 

4. A speech made by Mr. Webster at Capon Springs in 
Virginia, June 28, 1851. 

Every thing relating to the specific sources of proof is now 
before me. The 1st, 2d, and 3d are embraced in Mr. Webster's 
published works. The speech at Capon Springs is not included 
in his works, but I have a pamphlet copy of it before me, which 
once belonged to .him. The specifications, then, may be ex- 
ammed in their order. 

1.— The Debate of l^ZZ. 

Whether Mr. Webster must have felt Mr. Calhoun's speech 
to be unanswerable must be judged of by the reader after ex- 
amining the whole debate. Mr. StexDhens may think that Mr. 
Webster's rejoinder was insufficient ; but I do not understand 
how he is entitled to say that Mr. Webster made no rejoinder, 
or how it was that "Mr. Calhoun remained master of the arena," 
through any failure of Mr. Webster to continue standing on hi? 
own ground. A rejoinder does not necessarily embrace a full 
repetition of the original argument. As a reiissertion of one's 
position, its contents depend on one's judgment of the necessity 
for saying more than one has already said ; and vv^hen the ques- 
tion is, not whether a speaker had the best of the argument, but 
whether his rejoinder shows that he felt himself to have been 
floored by his opponent, we must enter into his own estimate 
of what was required to be said in that rejoinder. Having al- 
ready given the history of that great debate it is unnecessary 
for me to say more concerning the success with which Mr. 
Webster maintained his position. 

2. — TJie Argument in the Bank Case. 

Mr. Webster's argument in the case of The Bank of Augusta 
vs. Earle, in 1839. 

Mr. Stephens makes the following quotation from Mr. Web- 
ster's argument, the meaning of which he appears to have mis- 
apprehended." 

* I preserve the italics as Mr. Stephens has made them. 



ME. OUETIS' REVIEW. 75 

" ' But it is argued,' said Mr. Webster, ' that though this law of comity 
exists as between independent nations, it does not exist between the States 
of this Union. That argument appears to have been the foundation of the 
judgment in the Court below. 

" ' In respect to this law of comity, it is said. States are not Nations ; 
they have no National Sovereignty ; a sort of residuum of Sovereignty is 
all that remains to them. The National Sovereignty, it is said, is conferred 
on this Government, and part of the municipal Sovereignty. The rest of 
the municipal Sovereignty belongs to the States. Notwithstanding the 
respect which I entertain for the learned judge who presided in that 
Court, I cannot follow in the train of his argument. I can make no dia- 
gram, such as this, of the partition of national character between the State 
and General Governments. I cannot map it out, and say, so far is national 
and so far municipal ; and here is the exact line where one begins and the 
other ends. We have no second La Place — and we never shall have — with 
his " MScanique Politique," able to define and describe the orbit of each 
sphere in our political system with such exact mathematical precision. 
There is no such thing as arranging these governments of ours by the laws 
of gravitation so that they will be sure to go on forever without impinging. 
These institutions are practical, admirable, glorious, blessed creations. 
Still they were, when created, experimental institutions : and if the conven- 
tion which framed the Constitution of the United States had set down in 
it certain general definitions of power, such as have been alleged in tlie 
argument of this case, and stopped there, I verily believe that in the course 
of fifty years which have since elapsed, this government would have never 
gone into operation. 

" ' Suppose that this Constitution has said, in terms of the language of 
the Court below, all National Sovereignty shall belong to the United States ; 
all municipal sovereignty to the several States. I will say, that however 
clear, however distinct, such a definition may appear to those who use it, 
the employment of it in the Constitution could only have led to utter confusion 
and uncertainty. I am not prepared to say that the States have no Nation- 
al Sovereignty. The laws of some of the States — Maryland and Virginia, 
for instance — provide punishment for treason. The power thus exercised 
is certainly not municipal. Virginia has a law of alienage ; that is a power 
exercised against a foreign nation. Does not the question necessarily 
arise, when a power is exercised concerning an alien enemy — enemy to 
whom ? The law of escheat, which exists in all the States, is also the 
exercise of a great sovereign power. 

" ' The terra " Sovereignty" does not occur in the Constitution at all. 
The Constitution treats States as States, and the United States as the 
United States ; and, by a careful enumeration, declares all the powers that 
are granted to the United States, and all the rest are reserved to the 
States. If we pursue, to the extreme point the powers granted, and the 



YS THE EEVIEWERS EEVIEWED. 

powers reserved, the powers of the General and State governments will 
be found, it is to be feared, impinging, and in conflict. Our hope is, that 
the prudence and patriotism of the States, and the wisdom of this govern- 
ment, will prevent that catastrophe. For myself, I will pursue the advice 
of the court in Deveaux's case, I will avoid nice metaphysical subtilities, 
and all useless theories; I will keep my feet out of the traps of general defi- 
nition; I will keep my feet out of all traps; Itcill leep to things as they are, 
and go no further to inquire what they might be, if they were not what 
they are. The States of this Union, as States, arc subject to all the volun- 
tary and. customary laws of Nations.' 

" []\Ir. Webster here referred to and quoted a passage from Vattel (page 
Gl), which, he said, clearly showed that States connected together, as are 
the States of this Union, must be considered as much component parts of 
the law of nations as any others.] 

" 'If, for the decision of any question, the proper rule is to be found in 
the law of nations, that law adheres to the subject. It follow^s the subject 
through, no matter into what place, high or low. You cannot escape the 
law of nations in a case where it is applicable. The air of every judica- 
ture is full of it. It pervades the courts of law of the highest character, 
and the court of piepoudre ; aye, even the constable's court. It is part 
of the universal law. It may share the glorious eulogy pronounced, by 
Hooker upon law itself; that there is nothing so high as to be beyond the 
reach of its powder, nothing so low as to be beneath its care. If any 
question be within the influence of the law of nations, the law of nations 
is there. If the law of comity does not exist between the States of this 
Union, how can it exist between a State and the subjects of any foreign 
sovereignty ? ' " 

'Before introducing this extract, Mr. Stephens makes the ex- 
traordinary observation that "in this case the nature of the 
general government and the nature of the State government, 
in their rehitions to each other, came up for adjudication." If 
Mr. Stepliens means that there was any thing in this case which 
presented for adjudication the question of State sovereignty, 
that lies at the foundation of the doctrine of State Secession 
from the Union, or that the decision affords any color for that 
doctrine, he is quite mistaken. The question in the case which 
led to the course of reasoning embraced in the extract from 
Mr. AVcbster's argument was simply whether a corporation 
created by one State can make a valid contract in another 
State and can maintain a suit upon it in the courts of that 
other State. No denial of this capacity can be maintained. 



ME. CURTIS' REVIEW. 7Y 

except by showing that the States of this Union are not bound 
as between themselves by the comity of nations, which, by the 
law of nations, permits the citizens of the different sovereign- 
ties to contract and to sue in each other's dominions in the 
absence of any prohibitory law or declared prohibitory policy 
of the State where the right is claimed. Of course, in order 
to make the comity of nations, in this respect, applicable to the 
States of this Union in their relations with each other, it is 
necessary to regard each State as, for certain purposes, a nation ; 
or, in other words, to regard it as a sovereign State ; for such a 
State alone can be affected by the law of nations, as it exists 
when not curtailed by the sovereign will, or can declare by 
legislation or by its public policy that it does not mean to be 
bound by a particular rule of that law. But neither Mr. Web- 
ster nor any one else, in claiming that the States are sovereign 
in respect to their liability to be affected by the voluntary law 
of nations, in their relations to the citizens of other States, in 
matters of property, thereby admits that they arc sovereigns in 
respect to their capacity to witlidi-aw from the Union. It is 
remarkable that Mr. Stephens should have confounded these 
two things which are as wide asunder as the poles. "When did 
Mr. Webster ever deny that the States are sovereign in respect 
to all those political powers which are not conferred on the 
general government? He did not deny this in 1830 or 1833, 
and he had no new views to acquire or to express upon it in 
1839. It is just as much a fixed doctrine in the Webster school 
of constitutional law that the States are sovereign States as it 
is in the school of Mr. Calhoun. But the question is, sovereign 
as to what ? That they are sovereign in respect to the po^ver 
of declaring what contracts may be made within their limits, or 
what remedies may be pursued in their courts, all will agree ; 
and a State being to this extent a nation, Mr. Webster argued 
that it is bound by the comity of nations to permit the citizens 
of other States to contract and to sue in its jurisdiction ; and 
so the court held. But what has all this to do with that other 
claim of sovereignty, which makes it competent for a State, as 
a constitutional right resulting from the nature of the Union, 
to break up the Union by secession ? The two things can be 



78 THE REVIEWEES EEVIEJ^ED. 

connected only by assuming tliat lie who calls the States sover- 
eign for some purposes must of necessity so regard them for 
all other purposes. I know that it has always been so assumed 
by Mr. Calhoun and his followers, whose cardinal doctrine has 
been that sovereignty is indivisible. But this was never Mr. 
"Webster's doctrine ; and therefore when he argued that as to 
regulating the right to contract and to sue within its own juris- 
diction a State is a nation, and is bound by the comity of na- 
tions, he modified no previous opinion respecting the final and 
irrevocable grant of political powers which he had always main- 
tained was made by the States when they ratified the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. 

I presume that Mr. Webster would have been very much 
astonished if, on the argument of this case, one of his oppo- 
nents had risen and said, "So, then, sir, it appears that you 
have modified your opinions about the nature of the General 
Government, for you have distinctly said that the States are 
nations ; that they are sovereign ; that the Constitution treats 
the States as States, and if they are sovereign States, you must 
have changed your views as you expressed them in the Senate 
in 1830 and 1833." I fancy that Mr. Webster would have an- 
swered thus : 

'•When did I ever deny that the States are independent 
political communities, with full attributes of sovereignty in re- 
spect to all the powers of government not embraced in the 
Constitution of the United States, and not therein expressly 
restricted ? Be pleased to observe, sir, that the idea that a State 
cannot part with a portion of its sovereignty and remain a State 
may be yours, but it is not mine. It has always been my doc- 
trine, and is still, that the States did this very thing when they 
ratified the Constitution ; that they parted with a portion of 
their sovereignty and yet i^emained States^ 

Mr. Stephens may say this is impossible, but he has no 
ground for saying that Mr. Webster ever regarded it as impos- 
sible. His argument in the bank case could have been made 
on the same day with his reply to Ilayne or his reply to Cal- 
houn, and no man could have found the smallest departure 
from what he had previously maintained. 



ME. CURTIS' REVIEW. '^'9 

3. — The Opinion given to the Barings in 1831. 

In tlie summer of 1839 Mr. Webster was in England. It 
was the era of "repudiation." Several of the States proposed 
to refuse payment of the bonds which they had issued for rail- 
roads and other improvements. The firm of Baring Brothers, 
in London, representing the holders of a great amount of these 
securities, aware of the misconceptions prevailing in Europe 
concerning the nature of our political systems, and also of the 
grounds taken by some of the State governments, in excuse for 
their repudiation, applied to Mr. Webster for an opinion on the 
question, " AVhether the Legislature of one of the States has 
legal and constitutional power to contract loans at home and 
abroad ? " To a question so plain to every American constitu- 
tional lawyer there could be, of course, but one answer ; and it 
seems extraordinary that Mr. Stej^hens should have found in 
the answer given by Mr. Webster any views of State sover- 
eignty different from those which Mr. Webster had always 
maintained. It would be difficult to describe our political sys- 
tem with greater precision or more correctly than Mr. Webster 
stated it in this opinion. Having repeated the question pro- 
pounded to him, he said : 

" To this I answer that the Legislature of a State has such power, and 
how any doubt coukl have arisen on this jioint it is difficult for me to 
conceive. Every State is an independent, sovereign, political community, 
exce;pt in so far as certain powers, which it might otherwise have exercised, 
have been conferred on a General Government established under a written 
Constitution and exercising its authority over the people of all the States. 
This General Government is a limited Government. Its powers are specific 
and enumerated. All powers not conferred on it still remain with the 
States or with the people. The State Legislatures, on the other hand, 
possess all usual and ordinary powers of government, subject to any limi- 
tations which may be imposed in their own Constitutions, and with the 
exception, as I have said, of the operation on those powers of the Consti- 
tution of the United States." 

Is there any thing in this inconsistent with the doctrine 
maintained by Mr. Webster in 1830 and 1833 ? If there is any 
thing ever uttered by Mr. Webster which does not sanction the 
idea of State independence of the authority of the General 



80 THE EE VIE WEES EE VIE WED. 

Government as that aiithority is established by the Constitution 
of the United States, it is this opinion, given to the Barings in 
1839. Mr. Stephens may think tliat it is impossible for any one 
to speak of the States as "independent, sovereign, political 
commmiities," without conceding what is claimed by Mr. Cal- 
houn's theory of our system. But he must remember when 
Mr. Webster imputed these attributes to the States, he limited 
them in the same sentence by an excejytion, which comprehends 
the whole doctrine of Mr. AVebster's previous life, namely, that 
the powers of the States are circumscribed in certain particu- 
lars by a general Constitution, which exercises a certain au- 
thority over the people of all the States. But as this Consti- 
tution contains no limitation on the powers of the States to 
make loans for their own purposes — it is strictly correct to 
speak of the States as " independent, sovereign, political com- 
munities," in this and many other res]3ects. It all comes back 
to the question whether the sovereign powers of a people are 
divisible, so that a part can be granted irrevocably and a part 
can be retained. In the Calhoun theory this is regarded as im- 
possible ; in the Webster theory it is regarded as perfectly prac- 
ticable. But because the disciples of the former hold political 
sovereignty to be in itself indivisible, they are not warranted 
in imputing to Mr. Webster an adoption of their opinions, for 
the reason that he uniformly treated the States as independent 
political communities, excejyt in so far as they are restrained 
or limited by the powers wdiich they granted to the General 
Government when they ratified the Constitution of the United 
States. 

4. — The Speech made hj Mr. Wehster in June, 1851, at Cajpon 
Springs, in Virginia. 

The citation from Mr. AVebster's speech at Capon Springs, 
as proof of his " change of views as to the Constitution being 
a compact between the States," is made by Mr. Stephens in the 
following manner : 

" But, besides all tliis, as a further proof of Mr. Webster's change of 
views as to the Constitution being a compact between the States, I cite you 



ME. CUKTIS' REVIEW. 81 

to a later speech made by him at Caijon Springs, in Virginia, on the 28th 
June, 1851. Here it is. In this he says: 

" ' The leading sentiment in the toast from the Chair is the Union of 
the States. Tlie Union of the States ! What mind can comprehend the 
consequences of that Union, past, present, and to come ? The Union of 
these States is the all-absorbing topic of the day ; on it all men write, 
speak, think, and dilate, from the rising of the sun to the going down 
thereof. And yet, gentlemen, I fear its importance has been but insuflS- 
ciently appreciated.' " 

" Further on he says : 

'"How absurd is it to suppose that when different parties enter into a 
compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and 
expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest. I intend, for one, to 
regard and maintain, and carry out, to the fullest extent, the Constitution 
of the United States, which I have sworn to support in all its parts and 
all its provisions. It is written in the Constitution: "No person held to 
service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another 
shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from 
such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of tlie party to 
whom such service or labor may be due." 

" ' That is as much a part of the Constitution as any other, and as equal- 
ly binding and obligatory as any other on all men, public or private. And 
who denies this ? None but the abolitionists of the North. And pray 
what is it they will not deny ? They have but the one idea ; and it would 
seem that these fanatics at the North and the secessionists at the South 
are putting their heads together to devise means to defeat the good de- 
signs of honest and patriotic men. They act to the same end and the 
same object, and the Constitution has to take the fire from both sides. 

" ' I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States 
refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Con- 
stitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress 
provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the 
compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the 
other side. • I say to you gentlemen in Virginia, as I said on the shores of 
Lake Erie and in the city of Boston, as I may say again in that city or 
elsewhere in the North, that you of the South have as much right to re- 
ceive your fugitive slaves, as the North has to any of its rights or privi- 
leges of navigation and commerce.' 

" Again, said he: 'I am as ready to fight and to fall for the Constitu- 
tional rights of Virginia as I am for those of Massachusetts.' 

"In this speech Mr. Webster distinctly held that the Union was a 
Union of States. That the Union was founded upon a compact. And 
that a compact broken on one side could not continue to bind the other." 

As a liistorian, Mr. Stei^hens is singularly unfortunate. He 
cites Mr. Webster for the purpose of proving that he had come, 
in 1851, to regard the Constitution as a comx>aGt between the 
States, yet he overlooks the passages in the same speech which 
show that he did not so regard it. He refers to the sentiment 
uttered by Mr. Webster, that a compact broken on one side 
6 



83 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

could not continue to bind the other, and yet he omits the con- 
temporary evidence which shows in wJiat sense and h>/ what 
oneans Mr, Webster supposed the compact could be broken by 
"the otlicr side." Let the whole truth, therefore, be told. 

Every one will recollect that when the compromise measures 
of 1S50 were before Congress, the passage of the new fugitive 
slave law was resisted, on the ground that the clause of the 
Constitution, which required the extradition, was a mere treaty 
or compact between the States ; that if the Northern States did 
not choose to execute it, but preferred to break the compact, 
there was no remedy, or none that Congress could interpose ; 
and that, as the I*[ortheni States had come to regard this treaty 
as iimnoral, no law on the subject ought to be voted for by 
their representatives in Congi'ess. These sentiments were rife 
throughout the North after the act of 1850 was passed, and 
Mr. Webster had occasion to refer to them in a great many 
popular addresses in 1850, 1851, and 1852. In substance, this 
J^orthern doctrine was identical with the Southern doctrine 
which maintained the right of secession from the Union ; for 
the two concurred in imputing to the Constitution the character 
of a com/pact between the States, although the Northern advo- 
cates of this viev/ applied it to but one provision of the Con- 
stitution, while the Southern politicians applied it to the whole. 
During the entire period from 1850 to a time long after the 
death of Mr. Webster, the right of secession was much dis- 
cussed in the South ; and in speaking at Capon Springs, he had 
occasion to consider the Southern and the Northern jjliases 
of a kindred doctrine, and to show how they both led to 
Q'evolution, how there is no such thing as constitutional and 
peaceable secession, and how, consequently, the Constitution is 
not to be regarded as a mere compact. Now, it is proper that 
what Mr. Webster actually did say at Capon Springs should be 
brought forward, from a report published in a pamphlet at 
Washington, which I have reason to know had his sanction. 
The fact is that he made two speeches at the same dinner, 
which was given to him by the inhabitants of the surrounding 
country for fifty miles around. In the first speech he said, in 
conclusion : 



MR. CUETIS' REVIEW. 83 

" Gentlemen— I am aware that the respect j^aid to me to-day is in con- 
sequence of ray sujiport of the adjustment measures of the last Congress. 
Although I wished to raise no false alarm, nor.create any fears, yet I be- 
lieved in my conscience that a crisis was at hand— a dangerous, a fearful 
crisis ; and I resolved to meet it at all hazards, and with whatever strength 
I possessed. A true patriot,- like a faithful mariner, must he i^reparcd for 
all exigencies. In the words of the old song : 

' He is born for all weathers. 



Let the winds blow high or blow low; 
His duty keeps him to his tethers, 
And where the gale drives he must go,' 
(Ai^plause.) 

" The support of the Union is a great practical subject, involving the 
prosperity and glory of the whole country, and afleeting the prosperity 
of every individual in it. We ought to take a large and comprehensive 
view of it ; to look to its vast results, and to the consequences which 
would flow from its overthrow. It is not a mere topic for ingenious dis- 
quisition, or theoretical or fanatical criticism. Those who assail the 
Union at the present day seem to be persons of one idea only, and many 
of them of but half an idea. (Applause.) They plant their batteries on 
some useless abstraction, some false dogma, or some gratuitous assump- 
tion. Or, perhaps, seeking for some spot, or speck, or blot, or blur, and 
if they find* any thing of this kind, they are at once for overturning the 
whole fabric. And, when nothing else will answer, they invoke religion 
and speak of a higher law. Gentlemen, this North Mountain is high ; the 
Blue Ridge higher still; the Alleghany higher than either; and yet this 
higher law ranges farther than an eagle's flight above the highest peak of 
the Alleghany. (Laughter.) No common vision can discern it ; no con- 
science, not transcendental and ecstatic, can feel it ; the hearing of com- 
mon men never listens to its highest behests ; and, therefore, one should 
think it is not a safe law to be acted on in matters of the highest practical 
moment. It is the code, however, of the fonatical and factious abolition- 
ists of the North. The secessionists of the South take a difl'crent course 
of remark. They are learned and eloquent ; they are animated and full 
of spirit ; they are high-minded and chivalrous ; they state their supposed 
injuries and causes of complaint in elegant phrases and exalted tones of 
speech. But these complaints arc all vague and general. I confess to 
you, gentlemen, that I know no hydrostatic pressure strong enough to 
bring them into any solid form in which they could be seen or felt. 
(Laughter and applause.) They tiiink otherwise, doubtless. But, for one, 
I can discern nothing real or well-grounded in their complaints. If I may 
be allowed to be a little jirofcssional, I would say that all their complaints 
and alleged grievances are like a very insufficient plea in the law ; they 
are bad on general demurrer for want of substance. (Loud laughter.) But 



84 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

I am not disposed to reproach those gentlemen, or to speak of them with 
disrespect, I prefer to leave them to their own reflections. I make no 
aro"uments against rcsoU^tions, conventions, secession speeches, or procla- 
mations. Let these things go on. The whole matter, it is to be hoped, 
will blow over, and men will return to a sounder mode of thinking. But 
one thing, gentlemen, be assured of — the first step taken in the programme 
of secession, which shall be an actual infringement of the Constitution 
or the laws, will be promptly met. (Great ajJijlausc.) And I would not 
remain an hour in any Administration that should not immediately meet 
any such violation of the Constitution and law effectually, and at. once. 
(Prolonged applause.) And I can assure you, gentlemen, that all those 
with whom I am at present associated in the Government entertain the 
same decided purpose. (Renewed applause and cheers.) And now, gen- 
ttemen, let me advert to a cheering and gratifying occurrence. Let me do 
honor to your great and ancient commonwealth of A'^irginia. Let me say 
that, in my opinion, the resolutions passed by her Legislature at the last 
session, in which some gentlemen now present bore a part, have eflectually 
suppressed, or greatly tended to suppress, the notion of separate govern- 
ments and new confederacies. (Great applause.) All hopes of disunion, 
fovmded upon the probable course of Virginia, are dissipated into thin 
air. (Cheers.) An eminent gentleman in the Nashville Convention ejacu- 
lated : ' Oh, that Virginia were with us ! If Virginia would but take the 
lead in going out of the Union, other Southern States, would cheerfully 
follow that lead.' Ah, but that 'if ' was a great obstacle. (Laughter.) It 
was pregnant with important meaning. 'If Vii'ginia would take the 
lead.' But who, that looked for any consistency in Virginia, expected to 
see her leading States out of the Union, since she took such great pains, 
under the counsels of her ablest and wisest men, to lead them into it ? 
(Applause.) Her late resolutions have put a decided negative upon that 
' if,' and the country cordially thanks her for it. Fellow-citizens, I must 
bring these remarks to a close. Other gentlemen are present to whoth you 
expect to have the pleasure of listening. (Cries of ' Go on ! ') My con- 
cluding sentiment is : The Union of the States ; may those ancient friends, 
Virginia and Massachusetts, continue to uphold it so long as the waves of 
the Atlantic shall beat on the shores of the one, or the Alleghanies remain 
firm on their bases in the territories of the other ! " ' ■ 

He was again called up by a Democratic gentleman, who 
expressed his conenrrence in all that Mr. Webster had said in 
his previous remarks, although he had long differed from him 
on all other questions of public policy. In the second speech 
Mr. "Webster said : 

" Whatever may have been the dilTerences of opinion which have liere- 
tofore existed between the Democratic and Whig parties on other subjects, 



ME. CURTIS' REVIEW. 86 

they are now forgotten, or at least have become subordinate, and the 
important question that is now asked is, ' Are you a Union man ? ' (Great 
applause.) The question at this time is, the Union, and how we shall 
joreservc its blessings for the present, and for all time to come. To main- 
tain that Union, we must observe, in good fiith, the Constitution and all 
its parts. If the Constitution be not observed in all its parts, but its pro- 
visions be deliberately and permanently set aside in some parts, the whole 
of it ceases to be binding ; but the case must be clear, flagrant, undeniable, 
and in a point of vital interest. In short, it must be such as would justify 
revolution, for, after all, secession, disruption of the Union, or successful 
nullification are but other names for revolution. Where the whole system 
of laws and government is overthrown, imdcr vrhatevcr name the thing is 
done, what is it but revolution ? For it would be absurd to sujiposc that, 
by whole States and large portions of the country, either the North or 
the South has the power or the right to violate any part of that Constitu- 
tion, directly and of purpose, and still claim from the other observance of 
its provisions. (Applause.) If the South were to violate any part of the- 
Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing year 
after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer 
bound by the rest of it ? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, 
and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be 
bound any longer to observe its other obligations ? This is, indeed, to be 
understood with some qualification, for I do not mean, of course, that 
every violation by a State of an article of the Constitution would discharge 
other States from observing its provisions. No State can decide for itself 
what is constitutional and what is not. When any part of the Constitu- 
tion is supposed to be violated by a State law, the true mode of jirocceding 
is to bring the case before the judicial tribunals, and if the unconstitution- 
ality of the State law is made out, it is to be set aside. This has been 
done in repeated cases, and is the ordinary remedy. But what I mean to 
say is, that if the public men of a large portion of the country, and espe- 
cially their representatives in Congress, labor to prevent, and do perma- 
nently prevent the passage of laws necessary to carry into effect a provision 
of the Constitution particularly intended for the benefit of another part of 
the country, and which is of the highest importance to it, it cannot be 
expected that that part of the country will long continue to observe the 
other constitutional provisions made in favor of the rest of the country ; 
because, gentlemen, a disregard of constitutional duty in such a case, can- 
not be brought within the corrective autliority of the judicial power. If 
large portions of public bodies, against their duties and their oaths, will 
persist in refusing to execute the Constitution, and do in fact j)rcvcnt such 
execution, no remedy seeuis to be by any application to the Supreme 
Court.' The case now before the country clearly exemplifies my meaning. 
Suppose the North to have decided majorities in Congress, and suppose 



86 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

these majorities to persist in refusing to pass laws for carrying into effect the 
clause of tlie Constitution which declares that fugitive slaves shall be 
restored, it would be evident that no judicial process could compel them 
to do their duty, and what remedy would the South have ? How absurd 
it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a comiiact for certain 
purjjoses, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, 
the other to observe the rest ! I intend, for one, to regard and maintain 
and carry out, to the fullest extent, the Constitution of the United States, 
which I have sworn to support in all its parts and all its provisions. 
(Loud cheers.) It is written in the Constitution : 

" 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws 
thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regula- 
tion therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be 
delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor may 
be due.' 

"That is as much a part of the Constitution as any other, and as 
equally binding and obligatory as any other on all men, public or private. 
(Applause.) And who denies this? None but the abolitionists of the 
North. And pray what is it they will not deny ? They have but one 
idea ; and it would seem that these fanatics at the North and the seces- 
sionists at the South are putting their heads together to devise means to 
defeat the good designs of honest and patriotic men. They act to the 
same end and to the same object, and the Constitution has to take the fire 
from both sides. I have not hesitated to say, and. I repeat, that if the 
Northern States refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that 
part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, 
and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to 
observe the compact. (Immense ai:)i)lause.) A bargain cannot be broken 
on one side and still bind the other side. I say to you, gentlemen, in Vir- 
ginia, as I said on the shores of Lake Erie and in the city of Boston, as I 
may sJTy again, in that city or elsewhere in the North, that you of the 
South have as much right to receive your fugitive slaves as the North has 
to any of its rights and privileges of navigation and commerce. I desire 
to be understood here among you, and throughout the country, and in 
holies, thoughts, and feelings I profess to be an American — altogether and 
nothing but an American — (long and continued cheering) — and that I am 
for the Constitution. I am as ready to fight and to fall for the Constitu- 
tional rights of Vh'ginia as I am for those of Massachusetts. I pour out 
to you, gentlemen, my whole heart, and I assure you these are my senti- 
ments. (Cheers.) I would no more see a feather plucked unjustly from 
the honor of Virginia than I Avould see one so plucked from the honor of 
Massachusetts. (Great applause.) It has been said that I have, by the 
course I liuve tliouglit proper to pursue, displeased a portion of the people 
of Massacliusetts. That is true, and if I had dissatisfied more of them, 
what of that ? (Great and continued applause.) 



MR. CURTIS' REVIEW. 87 

" I was in the Senate of the United States, and had sworn to support 
the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution made me a 
Senator of the United States, acting for all the States, and my vote was to 
bind the whole country. I was a Senator for the whole country. (Ap- 
plause.) What exclusive regard had I to pay to the v.'ishes of Massachu- 
setts upon a question affecting the whole nation, and in which my vote 
was to bind Virginia as well as Massachusetts ? My vote was to affect the 
interests of the whole country, and was to be given on matters of high 
constitutional character. I assure you, gentlemen, I no more respected the 
instructions of Massachusetts than I would have respected those of Vir- 
trinia. It would be just as reasonable to expect me to vote as the particu- 
lar interests of Massachusetts required as it would be to expect that, as 
an arbitrator, a referee, or an umpire between two mdividuals, I was bound 
to obey the instructions of one of them. (Applause.) Could I do that ? 
Have I descended, or am I expected to descend, to that level ? (Cries of 
'Never, never. You are not the man to do it.') I hope not." 

The reader now lias tlie whole context ; and he will see that 
in speaking of a particular clause in the Constitution which 
may properly enough, like many others in it, be regarded 
as founded in a compact between dift'erent classes of the States, 
Mr. Webster uttered the very familiar truth that if a bargain 
is broken on one side it may be broken on the other. But 
how broken? By the supposed remedy of "constitutional 
secession?" Not at all. It must be broken by revolution, 
which secession is, however provoked. Mr. Webster was ad- 
dressing himself to the Northern fonatics, and he tells them 
that if they undertake to treat the Constitution as a nullity in 
the matter of surrendering fugitive slaves the South will have 
the right, which is the foundation of all revolutions, to break up 
the Union by maldng a revolution. At the same time, he tells 
the South, just as plainly, that if, on imaginary grievances, or 
any grievances that can be redressed under the Constitution, 
they " take the first step in the programme of secession ''— 
which means the alleged constitutional right of States to with- 
draw from the Union— that step will " be promptly met," and 
that he will not remain an hour in any administration that does 
not meet it effectually and at once. The distinction is palpable, 
and it should not have been overlooked by Mr. Stephens. Still 
less should he have overlooked the following correspondence, 
which was published in the newspapers, at the time, and which 



88 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

ought cftcctually to end all controversy about Mr. AVebster's 
later or earlier opinions as to the character of the Constitution : 



[from a citizen of north CAROLINA TO MR. "WEBSTER. ] 

Hon. Daniel Webster : 

Dear Sir: The question of the right of a State to secede from the 
Union is, as you are doubtless aware, producing at this time, in this part 
of the Union, no inconsiderable degree of excitement. And. as it is a 
question in which every free American is directly concerned, a question 
upon which every free American should be correctly informed, as upon its 
decision may depend the future prosperity and happiness or misfortune 
and ruin of this great country ; and believing, as I do, that from your inti- 
mate acquaintance with the principles upon which our government is 
based, and the operation of all of its machinery, you are entirely compe- 
tent to give upon this, as upon all other questions of like character, cor- 
rect information ; and being anxious myself, as many others are, to possess 
correct views with regard to the subject, I desire you, valuable as I know 
your time to be, to devote a moment in giving an answer to the following 
interrogatory : ' Do you believe that a State has a right to secede from 
the Union ? ' By answering this question, sir, you will confer a favor upon 
many of your countrymen here, who believe, as I do, that an opinion of 
yours, thus expressed, would go very far towards quieting the excitement 
that the agitation of this subject has produced in this section of the Union. 
With profound admiration for your character as an American statesman, 
and sincere regard for you as an American citizen, 
I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 

July 20, 1851. 

[MR. Webster's answer.] 

August 1, 1851. 

Dear Sir : I have received your letter of the 20th July. The Con- 
stitution of the United States recognizes no right of secession, as existing 
in the people of any one State or any number of States. It is not a limited 
confederation, but a government ; and it proceeds upon the idea that it is 
to be perpetual, like other forms of government, subject only to be dis- 
solved by revolution. I confess I can form no idea of secession but as the 
result of a rcvolutionaiy movement. How is it possible, for instance, that 
South Carolina should secede and establish a government foreign to that 
of the United States, thus dividing Georgia, which does not secede, from 
the rest of the Union ? Depend upon it, my dear sir, that the secession 
of any one State would be but the first step in a process which must 
inevitably break up the entire Union into more or fewer parts. What I 
said at Capon Springs was an argument addressed to the North, and 



MR. CURTIS' REVIEW. 89 

intended to convince the North that if, by its superiority of uumberB, it 
should defeat the operation of a plain, undoubted, and undeniable injunc- 
tion of the Constitution, intended for the especial protection of the South, 
such a proceeding must necessarily end in the breaking up of the govern- 
ment : that is to say, in a revolution.. 

I am, dear sir, with respect, your obedient servant, 

Dakiel Websteb. 

I liave thus gone over the proofs adduced by Mr. Stephens 
to show that Mr. Webster had changed his opinions ; and have 
made it phiin, I trust, that what he said in 1839 or 1851, is 
entirely consistent with his theory of the Constitution as main- 
tained in 1830-33. Both he and Mr. Calhoun held the States 
to be sovereign political communities ; but the point at which 
they diverged from each other, and in consequence of which 
divergence they never could imite, was this : that Mr. Webster 
held the grant of political powers embraced in the Constitution 
to be perpetual and irrevocable, constituting a government 
proper, to the extent of those powers, by the establishment of a 
fundamental lau\ which rests on the same obligations and sanc- 
tions which are the support of all law ; whereas Mr. Calhoun 
held that the powers of the Constitution were only delegated 
by the States to an agent, and could be resumed at any time 
when the sovereign who delegated them sees fit, for cause of 
which he is to judge, to withdraw them. It is perfectly easy to 
see that this difference of view springs from opposite opinions 
respecting the divisibility of sovereign powers. It has always 
been a dogma of the South Carolina school that sovereignty is 
indivisible — incapable of being gi'anted away in part and in part 
reserved ; that it is a unit, and must be wholly retained or 
wholly surrendered. On the other hand, Mr. Webster and all 
those before him or after him, who have regarded the Constitu- 
tion of the United States as something more than a mere federal 
league or a federal compact between independent States, have 
always held that sovereign powers are capable of division ; that 
a part can be granted in fee and the residue can be retained, 
and that thus there is in this country, by the grants of the Con- 
stitution, a national sovereignty of a limited character, and by 
the reservations impliedly made and expressly declared a separate 
State sovereignty which embraces every political power not 



90 THE KEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. "Which- 
ever of the theories is the correct one, they agree in attributing 
independent sovereignty to the States in respect to their re- 
served powers. They differ only in respect to the legal capacity 
of the States, under the Constitution, to withdraw or resume 
the powers conferred by their people on the government of the 
United States. Mr. "Webster never denied that the States, in 
their original capacities, could break up the Union by a revolu- 
tion ; but he denied that they could make a legal secession from 
the Union as a right resulting to them from the nature and 
intent of the Constitution. On the very last occasion on which 
he referred to this subject in the Senate (March, 1850,) he said : 

" I hold that the breaking up of this Union by any such thing as 
voluntary secession of States is impossible. I know that the Union can 
be broken as other governments have been ; and I admit that there may 
be such a degree of oppression by one part, being the majority, upon the 
minority, as -will warrant resistance and forcible severance. That is revo- 
lution. On that ultimate right of revolution I have not been sijeaking ; I 
know that law of necessity does exist. I forbear from going further, be- 
cause I do not wish to run into discussion upon the nature of this govern- 
ment. The honorable member and myself have broken lauces sufficiently 
often heretofore." 

Mr, Calhoun (in his seat) — " I do not desire it now." 
Mr. Webster — " I presume the honorable Senator does not desire it 
now. I have quite as little desire as he." 

This oqcurred in a colloquy after the close of Mr. "Webster's 
speech of March T, 1850. Does it look as if he had changed 
his opinions since 1830 or 1833 ? It is the very essence of what 
he said in those years : a denial of that uncontrolled and unim- 
paired State sovereignty on which the constitutional right of 
secession is founded, and an admission that the States can make 
a revolution if they are subjected to intolerable oppression. 



ME. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 91 



; II. — Mk. Stephens' Reply. 

Liberty ITall, ) 

Crawfordville, Georgia, Aujust SI, 18C9. ) 

Messrs. Editors of the JSf. Y. ^Vorld : 

You will, I trust, allow me sj^acc cnougli in your columns 
to reply to tlie article of Mr. George T. Curtis in your issue of 
the 23d inst., which reached me only a few days ago. If Mr. 
Curtis had given close attention to the language and the due 
import of the words used in the text of tliat part of the book he 
undertook to review, it seems to me he would have been relieved 
from the great astonishment he expresses at it, as well as from 
the no very small labor he has bestowed upon an attempted 
refutation of the positions therein maintained. He must cer- 
tainly be quite as ^^ unfortunate^^ a reader as he imagines me to 
be a ^'^ historian,''^ if he perceives in any thing said by me upon 
the subject the slightest gi'ound for supposing that I intended 
even to intimate or suggest that Mr. Webster, in the later years 
of his life, or at any time, had so tar changed or modified any 
of his previous opinions " respecting the nature of the Constitu- 
tion, as to become a convert or almost a convert," to the doc- 
trine of " State Secession from the Union as a Ili(jld under the 
Constitution." Certainly nothing he quotes from me can prop- 
erly bear any such construction, and just as certainly nothing 
said by me, which he has not quoted, can bear any such con- 
struction. 

His quotations are as follows : 

"Mr. Stephens observes (p. 387) : 

" ' The power and force of this speech (Mr. Calhoun's) must have been 
felt by Mr. Webster himself. He was a man of too much reason and logic 
not to have felt it. Tliis opinion I am more inclined to from the fact that 
he not only did not attempt a general reply to it at the time, but from tlie 
further fact that in after life he certainly, to say the least of it, greatly 
modified the opinions held by him in that debate.' 

"In the next chapter Mr. Stephens' interlocutor having called for 
proofs, he proceeds to give them. He then (p. 40.5) after citing, as the 
latest evidence, a speech made by Mr. "Webster in 1851, observes : 

" ' That this speech shows a modification of the opinions expressed in 
his speech of 1833, must be admitted by all. He had grown older and 



92 THE REVIEWERS REYIEWED. ' 

■wiser. The speech of 1851 was in his maturer years, after the nature of 
the Government had been more fully discussed by the men of his own 
generation than it had been in 1830 and 1833. He was too great a man, 
and had too great an intellect not to see the truth when it was presented, 
and he was too honest and too patriotic a man not to i^roclaim the truth 
when he saw it, even to an unwilling people.' " 

Is there any thing in eitlier of these even intimating or 
suggesting that Mr. Webster had changed his opinions npon 
the question of State secession in any way, either under the 
Constitution or as a revolutionary right f The citations made 
by me from his speech before the Supreme Court, in 1839, and 
his letter to the Barings the same year, as well as the citation 
from his speech in 1851 — all of which are admitted by Mr, 
Curtis to be correct, and which are reproduced by himself — were 
not made with the view to show that Mr. Webster favored 
secession as a constitutional remedy for wrongs of any sort, or 
that he was not opposed to any such remedy either theoretically 
or practically ; nor was any such use or aj^plication made of them 
by me. Secession was not the point in issue between the col- 
loquists at the time. That was the isolated question, whether 
or not the Constitution was a compact between sovereign States. 

For a clear understanding of the whole subject, and to enable 
your readers to judge correctly how far Mr. Curtis has been 
successful in detecting any error in my statements, or in refut- 
ing any assertions of mine in the premises, it is proper that they 
should know not only what I said but the connection in which 
it was said. Then, let it be distinctly understood that the fact 
at issue between the colloquists, at the time the remarks about 
the modification of Mr. Webster's opinions were made, was 
simply whether the Constitution was a Compact between the 
States, as distinct, separate sovereign political bodies. This 
was one point, first to be clearly established heyond all douht 
and question, in the line of my argument. I had maintained 
that it was. Professor Norton had read Mr. Webster's great 
speech in the Senate in 1833, on Mr. Calhoun's resolutions, to 
show that it was not. This argument, he insisted, conclusively 
showed that the Constitution was not a Compact between Sover- 
eign States. Let it also be understood that the first of Mr. Cal- 
houn's resolutions, against M'hich all Mr. Webster's powers 



ME. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 93 

were put ibrtli in that speech, according to his own view, and 
as stated by him in the speech, embraced this doctrine: 

" That the political system under which we live, and under which 
Congress is now assembled, is a Compact, to which the people of the 
several States, as separate and sovereign communities, are the parties." 

Let your readers alsp bear in mind that the doctrine so set 
forth in this resohition, as Mr. Webster understood it, he op- 
posed toto coelo — root and branch. {See Con. View of tlie Late 
War heiween the States, Yoh I., p. 301.) In direct opposition 
to it he pLanted himself upon the following proposition : 

" That the Constitution of the United States is not a league, confed- 
eracy, or compact between the people of the several States in their sover- 
eign capacities, but a government proper, founded on Ihc adoption of the 
people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals." 

In his speech he broadly and unequivocally denied that the 
" Constitution was a compact between the States," holding that 
if "our instrument of government be a constitution, then 
for that very reason, it cannot be a compact between sover- 
eigns." "A constitution of Government," said he, "and a 
compact between sovereign powers being things essentially un- 
like in their very natures, and incapable of ever being the 
same." The line of argument in the speech was to show that 
the Federative character of the Government, as it had existed 
under the Articles of Confederation, had been entirely done 
away M'ith by the adoption of the Constitution ; and that a 
National Government, without any sort of Federal alliance, had 
been thereby established. He maintained that the Union es- 
tablished under the Constitution was no longer a union of 
States, but a union of the whole people of all the States in one 
body politic. Among other things on this point, he said, with 
emphasis : 

'•You will observe, sir, that it is the people, and not the States, who 
have entered into tliis compact : and it is the people of all the United 
States. These conventions, by this form of expression, nieant merely to 
say that the people of the United States had, by the blessing of Provi- 
dence, enjoyed the opportunity of establishing a new Constitution founded 
in the consent of the people. This consent of the peoj^k has been called, 
by European writers, the social compact ; and, in conformity to tliis coin- 



94: THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

mon mode of cxiircssion, these conventions speak of that assent, on -which 
the new Constitution was to rest, as an explicit and solemn compact, not 
whicli the States had entered into with each other, but which the people 
of the United States had entered into. 

" Finally, sir, how can any man get over the words of the Constitution 
itself? 'TFe, the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Con- 
stitution.^ These words must cease to be a part of the Constitution, they 
must be obliterated from the i^archment on which they are written, before 
any human ingenuity or human argument can remove the popular basis 
on which that Constitution rests, and turn the instrument into a mere com- 
pact between sovereign States ! " 

This speech, he it remembered, had just been read by Pro- 
fessor ISTorton, as a conchisive refutation of my position in the 
Colloquies ; and after some comments of my own upon it (sec 
page 337), for a full answer to it, following his example, I had 
read Mr. Calhoun's speech in reply. At the close of this the 
colloquy proceeds as follows, page 387 : 

" This is quite enough," said I, " of Mr. Calhoun's reply. I have read 
all of it that bears directly upon the main points in issue between them. 
On these points never was a man more completely answered than Mr. 
Webster was. The argument is a crusher, an extinguisher, an annihila- 
tor ! " 

"Professor Nokton — ' Where is Mr. Webster's rejoinder? ' " 

" Mr. Stephexs — ' He made none. He followed with a few remarks 
only, disavowing any personal unkind feelings to Mr. Calhoun, explaining 
how he had used the term " Constitutional Compact," in 1830 ; and at- 
tempting to parry one or two of the blows, but he never made any regular 
set rei^ly or rejoinder. He never came back at his opponent at all on the 
real question at issue. Mr. Calhoun stood master of the arena. This 
speech of his was not answered then ; it has not been answered since ; and, 
in my judgment, never will be or can be answered while truth has its 
legitimate influence and reason controls the judgment of men ! The 
power and force of this speech must have been felt by Mr. Webster him- 
self. He was a man of too much reason and logic not to have felt it. 
TMs opinion I am the more inclined to from the fact that he not only did 
not attempt a general reply to it at the time, but from the further fact 
that in after life he certainly, to say the least of it, greatly modified the 
opinions held by him in that debate.' " 

" Professor Norton — ' To what do you refer ? ' 

" Mr. Stephens — ' I refer specially to a speech made by him before the 
Supreme Court of the United States, in 1839, and to his speech at Capon 
Springs, in Virginia, in 1851, as well as some other matters.' " 



ME. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 95 

Then follow the citations quoted by Mr. Curtis from the 
speech before the Supreme Court, from the letter to the Bar- 
ings, and from the Capon Sprini!;s speech. These are the 
essential facts of the case ; and from which it clearly appears 
that the sole object in view in these citations was to show, as I 
thought they did, and still think they do, great modifications, 
to say the least of it, of the opinions of Mr. "Webster as ex- 
pressed in the speech referred to, and on the main point then 
at issue between him and Mr. Calhoun, and not to show that 
Mr. "Webster had become " a convert " to the doctrine of State 
Secession in any form. Mr. Curtis thinks that these citations 
show no such modification. Be it so. This is a matter of opin- 
ion only. An intelligent public can judge of our respective 
opinions on the subject. Mr. "Webster, in his argument before 
the Supreme Court, did certainly say : 

"In respect to this law of comity, it is said States are not nations; 
they have no national sotereigntjf ; a sort of residuum of sovereignty is all 
that remains to them. The national sovereignty, it is said, is conferred on 
this Government, and part of the municipal sovereignty. The rest of the 
municipal sovereignty belongs to the States. Notwithstanding the respect 
which I entertain for the learned judge who presided in that Court, I can- 
not follow in the train of Ids argument. . . . Suppose that 
this Constitution had said, in terms after the language of the Court be- 
low, all national sovereignty shall belong to the Uiiited States ; all muni- 
cipal sovereignty to the several States. I will say that, however clear, 
however distinct, such a definition may appear to those who use it, the 
employment of it in the Constitution would only have led to utter con- 
fusion and uncertainty. I am not pi'eparcd to say that the States have no 
national sovereignty. . . . The term 'sovereignty' does not 
occur in the Constitution at all. The Constitution treats States as States, 
and the United States as the United States ; and, by a careful enumeration, 
declares all the powers that are granted to the United States, and all the 
rest are reserved to the States. . . . The States of this Union, 
as States,are sulject to all the voluntary and customary laws of nations.'''' 

These utterances were made by Mr. "Webster in 1 839, six 
years after the speech in 1833 ; the italics are mine. Mr. Cur- 
tis, in a note to his article, in his reproduction of my quotation, 
says that he preserved my italics ; but somehow or other my 
italics were not preserved in his republication, as any one can 
see by a reference to the book. Not a single sentence italicized 



9G THE EEVIEWEES REVIEWED. 

by me is italicized in his republication ; nor did I put in italics 
a single sentence printed in italics, in that republication. This 
remark is made in passing, to let your readers know that I place 
no stress whatever upon those portions of the speech which in 
his reiDublication were thus italicized, while I did place great 
stress upon those that I had thus marked. In my comments on 
this speech I said (p. 392) : 

" In this carefully prepared argument Mr. Webster significantly says 
that in the Constitution nothing is srtid about sovereignty. This is all 
important. He admitted, in the debate with Mr. Calhoun, that the States 
"were sovereign before the Constitution was adopted. In this argument he 
holds the position that the powers delegated to the United States in the 
Constitution are specific and limited, and that all not delegated are re- 
served to the States. He states distinctly that the Constitution treats the 
States as States. If the States, then, were sovereign anterior to the Con- 
stitution, and sovereignty was not delegated or parted with by them in it 
(as it could not have been, as the Constitution is silent upon the subject), 
then, of course, it is still reserved to the States. If the sovereignty of the 
States was not delegated or parted with in the Constitution, was it not of 
necessity retained by them ? He clearly so argues. This is the inevitable 
conclusion from the rules of inexorable logic. The decision of the Su- 
preme Court in this case was on the line of his argument, and fully sus- 
tained his position." 

The Sovereignty of the States was one of the points in issue 
between him and Mr. Calhoun. , I did think, and still think, 
the expressions in this speech showed a gi-eat modification of his 
views as presented in 1833. But Mr. Curtis says : 

" I presume that Mr. Webster would have been very much astonished 
if, on the argument of this case, one of his opponents had risen and said : 
' So, then, sir, it appears that you have modified your opinions about the 
nature of the general government, for you have distinctly said that the 
States are nations ; that they are sovereign ; that the Constitution treats 
the States as States, and, if they are sovereign States, you must have 
changed your views as you expressed them in the Senate in 1830 and 1833.' 
I fancy that Mr. Webster would have answered thus : 

" ' When did I ever deny that the States are independent political com- 
munities, with full attributes of sovereignty in respect to all the powers 
of government not embraced in the Constitution of the United States and 
not therein expressly restricted ? Be pleased to observe, sir, that the idea 
that a State cannot part with a portion of its sovereignty and remain a 



ME. STEPHENS' EEPLY TO ME. CUETIS. 97 

State may be yours, but it is not mine. It lias always been my doctrine, 
and is still, that the States did this very thing when they ratified the Con- 
stitution ; that they parted with a portion of their sovereignty and yet 
remained States.'' " 

Let me say to Mr. Curtis, if I liad been tlie person to whom 
Mr. Webster had offered such a defense of himself, I should 
have said to him in reply : 

"Why, Mr. Webster, how can you say that 'it has always 
been your doctrine, and is still, that the States did this very 
thing when they ratified the Constitution,' in the face of the 
emphatic declaration in your speech on Mr. Calhoun's resolu- 
tions, that the Constitution was not ratified hj the States at all? 
That the States as States had nothing to do with it ? You then 
said : ' You will observe, sir, that it is the peoiole and not the 
States, who have entered into this compact ; and it is the people 
of all the United States '—not the people of the States acting 
separately as distinct political bodies, much less nations— who 
ratified it ; that it was the people of the whole country united 
as one nation, and that no ' human ingenuity or human aro-u- 
ment ' could ' turn the instrument into a mere compact between 
sovereign States.' 

" Your reply to my remark, as well as your whole argument 
before the court, is based upon the doctrine that our Union is 
one of States, perfect States, or N'ations, as you call them, joined 
together by some sort of agreement or compact wherein are 
distinctly set forth certain specific powers of government care- 
fully enumerated, which are to be exercised by the general gov- 
ernment within their respective jurisdiction. You quote Vat- 
tel to show how States may be thus united and still be ' as much 
component parts ot the laws of nations as any others.' This 
author does very clearly set forth the nature of the union of 
these States as I now understand you to hold it to bo. He says 
pointedly : 

" ' Several sovereign independent States may unite themselves together 
by a perpetual Confederacy without ceasing each to be individually a per- 
fect State. They will together constitute a Federal republic ; their joint 
deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each, though they may in 
certain respects put some restraint on the exercise of it in virtue of volun- 
tary engagements,' 

7 



98 * THE EEYIEWERS EEVIEWED. 

" This clearly shows the nature of our Union, as I under- 
stand you now hold it to be. But is not this view of it a great 
modification of the view entertained when joii maintained in 
your speech of 1833 that it was not a Confederacy or Federal 
Eepublic in any sense whatever ? How is this ? Will you please 
to explain further? " 

Will Mr. Curtis, as Mr. Webster's representative, be pleased 
to give us what answer he imagines Mr. AVebster could give to 
this reply without admitting a modification of his views ? 

But to proceed. It is an admitted fiict that Mr. Webster did 
say in his letter to the Barings, in 1839, in speaking of the 
States of this Union : " Every State is an independent sovereign 
political community, except in so far as certain powers which 
otherwise it might have exercised have been conferred on a gen- 
eral government, established under a written constitution, and 
exerting its authority over the people of all the States. This 
general government is a limited government. Its powers are 
sjyecijic and enumerated. All powers not conferred upon it still 
remain with the States and with the people." 

Mr. Curtis says " It would be difficult to describe our politi- 
cal system with a greater precision or more correctly than Mr. 
Webster stated in this opinion." With Mr. Curtis in this view 
I concur thoroughly. In as feio words it w^ould be difficult to 
give a more correct or accurate idea of its general 2^^"inci])les. 
But let me ask Mr. Curtis, or any intelligent man, wherein is 
there any essential or conceivalde difference between the nature 
or character of the government thus described and the govern- 
ment" of the United States under their first Articles of Union, 
the words of one of these Articles being : 

"Eacli State retain3 its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and 
every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation 
expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." 

The or\\y j)ossihU difference is as to the extent of the powers 
delegated and the machinery for their exercise. Docs Mr. Cur- 
tis see no modification of the views expressed in this letter 
from those presented in Mr. Webster's first proposition as to 
the nature of our government in 1833, above set forth, wherein 



ME. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 99 

lie maintained that ours was not a Confederacy of any sort ? 
Could such a government as he describes in his letter to the 
Barings be instituted without some agreement or compact be- 
tween the members of it or parties to it, setthng by enumera- 
tion the specific powers parted with by them ? In that speech 
he declared there was no such compact. The views, therefore, 
expressed in 1839 by him do appear to me to be considerably 
modified from those expressed by him on the same subject in 
1833. If Mr. Curtis thinks differently, so be it. It is only a 
difference of opinion between us. 

Again. It is an admitted fact that Mr. Webster, in his 
speech at Capon Springs, in 1851, did use the following lan- 
guage : 

"I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, tliat if the Northern States 
refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Con- 
stitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress 
provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the 
compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the 
other side." 

In tho previous part of the same speech it is admitted that 
he said : 

" How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a 
compact for certain purposes either can disregard any one provision, and 
expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest ! I intend, for one, to 
regard, and maintain, and carry out, to the fullest extent, the Constitution 
of the United States, which I have sworn to support in all its parts and 
all its provisions." 

In this speech I maintain that Mr. Webster fully admitted 
the Constitution to be a Compact between the States of the 
Union, and recognized the obligation of each State as well as 
his own to observe its provisions as such. This did seem to 
me to be a very great modification of his views on the same 
subject as expressed in 1833, when all his powers were put 
forth to show that it was not a Compact between the States. 
The views expressed in this speech amount, in my opinion, to 
an admission in effect of all that was set forth in Mr. Calhoun's 
first resolution, against which Mr. Webster's speech in 1833 
was chiefly directed. Let Mr. Curtis, or any one else, read that 



100 THE KEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

resolution as I have given it above, as it was stated in substance 
by Mr. "Webster himself, and then read that part of his Capon . 
Springs speech, and point out any essential difference between 
them if he can. If Mr. Curtis sees no modification, no differ- 
ence between the doctrine expressed in the Capon Springs 
speech and that set forth by Mr. Webster in his resolution 
above cited, on which he planted himself in his great speech of 
1833, to say nothing farther of the argument in the body of 
that speech, wherein he maintained that the Constitution was 
not a Compact between the States, then again I say be it so. 
I thought, and still think, there is a very great modification, to 
say the least of it, of the views in the latter from the views ex- 
pressed in the former, and directly upon the main point at 
issue between him and Mr. Calhoun. That point then at issue 
on Mr. Calhoun's first resolution was not nullification or seces- 
sion, but the isolated question whether the Constitution is a 
Compact between the States. , 

My comments on this speech appear in the second of Mr. 
Curtis' quotations, from the book as above given. From this 
it appears that I used it for no such purpose as he seems to im- 
agine. I did not use it even to show an inconsistency in Mr. J 
Webster, to his discredit. He was a man whom I greatly i 
admired. Of this I have given many and abundant proofs. 
His memory I shall ever revere. His reputation, while in life, 
I defended on several occasions when unjustly assailed, and I 
am not the less ready to do the same thing now, when he is no 
longer amongst the living. His fame and good name belong 
not exclusively to those of his own blood or executors ; they 
belong to the country, the age, and to the world, and should be 
safe in the hands of every just and upright man. I did believe, 
and do believe, that he felt the power of Mr. Calhoun's reply 
to his great argument made to prove that the Constitution is 
not a Compact between the States. I have no idea, however, 
that he became a convert to Mr. Calhoun's views, with the 
logical sequences he claimed from his premises. On the con- '\ 
trary, I believe and feel well assured that he did not ; but I do 
believe his own opinion on the main question involved in the 
debate in 1833, that is, the question of the Constitution being 



MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 101 

a Compact between tlie States, underwent considerable modi- 
fication, to say the least of it, in the after part of his life. It 
was solely with a view to show the reason of this opinion of 
mine that the citations from his speeches and letter referred to 
were made. 

But Mr. Curtis says I am "singularly unfortunate," as a 
historian, in this, that I ^^ cited this Capon Springs speech of 
Mr. Webster for the purpose of showing that he had come in 
1851 to regard the Constitution as a Compact between the 
States, yet overlooked the passages in the same speech which 
show that he did not so regard it." If what Mr. Curtis here 
says be correct, I am very justly chargeable with being some- 
thing worse than an "unfortunate historian." In reply to the 
criticism, I have this to say : If there is any thing in the speech 
from which the citation is taken that goes to show or tends to 
show that Mr. "Webster did not mean just what he said, and 
just what his words clearly import, and just what I understood 
him and quoted him as meaning, it not only escaped my atten- 
tion when the citation was made, but after the most diligent 
search through that speech and the other made at the same 
place, both of whicli Mr. Curtis has published, it still escapes 
my search. I can find nothing of the sort. I find, as I found 
when the citation was made, a great deal which conclusively 
shows that he was iitterly opposed to secession as a constitu- 
tional remedy against any supposed wrongs on the part of the 
General Government ; but not one word qualifying in the least 
about the Union being "a union of States," and the Constitu- 
tion being a Compact between them. If Mr. Curtis found any 
thing of that kind in either of these speeches, he most unfortu- 
nately failed to point it out. The citation, therefore, was not 
only pertinent, but exceedingly fortunate for my purpose. 

Another " singular error " which Mr. Curtis is pleased to 
charge me with is in relation to the rejoinder of Mr. "Webster 
to Mr. Calhoun's speech in 1833. I said that Mr. "Webster 
made no regular set reply or rejoinder to Mr. Calhoun. He 
had followed with a few remarks only, explaining and attempt- 
ing to parry one or two of the blows. He never came back at 
his opponent at all on the real question at issue. That he did 



102 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

not make any general reply Mr. Curtis admits, but attempts to 
show, by giving a history of the debate, that it was not called 
for ; that Mr. AVebstcr's speech was, in fact, a reply to one from 
Mr. Calhoun on the same subject ; and Mr. Calhoun's speech, 
to which I referred, was itseK a rejoinder to Mr. Webster's, 
which brought out no new matter of importance, and needed 
no farther special notice. This seems to be the object of his 
narrative in giving the history of the debate, and in exposing . 
what he calls an error of mine. Now, the truth of this matter 
is just as stated in the book. The Force Bill was introduced 
on the 21st day of January, 1833. Mr. Callioun's resolutions 
were introduced the next day. They took their place on the 
table. The Force Bill was taken up first. Mr. Calhoun spoke 
against that on the 15th and 16th of Febniary. Immediately 
on the conclusion of Mr. Calhoun's speech on the Force Bill, 
Mr. Webster arose and addi-essed the Senate on Mr. Calhoun's 
resolutions, which were not then before them for consideration 
{IS'iles' Register^ Vol. xUii., Apj)., p. lYO). He devoted his 
speech almost entirely to these resolutions. He did not in his 
speech from beginning to end allude specially to a single posi- 
tion or argument of Mr. Calhoun's speech just delivered npon 
the Force Bill. Some very general references to it are all that 
he made. It was on the 26th of February, when his resolutions 
were before the Senate for consideration, that Mr. Calhoun re- 
plied to Mr. Webster's speech delivered on these resolutions ten 
days before. This speech was made in defence of his resolu- 
tions against the assault that had been made on them. It cov- 
ered ground never before occupied, and presented arguments 
never before presented by Mr. Calhoun in the Senate. On 
these new grounds and new arguments Mr. AVebster never 
came back at him. He did, I said, make a few remarks at- 
tempting to parry some of the blows. Mr. Curtis has pub- 
lished the whole of these. He thinks, from his account of the 
debate, that hut little was necessary to be said, and that little 
was said in a ^^ nutshell .^^ This "nutshell," however, as he calls 
it, as your readers perceive, is just of the character I had repre- 
sented it to be! What Mr. Webster said in it about '^acces- 
sion" and his other attacks upon the language of Mr. Calhoun's 



MPw STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 103 

resolution, can be looked upon as nothing but efforts to parry. 
Calhoun had demolished him on all these. Tlie same is true 
of what he said on the resolution when moditied by Mr. Cal- 
houn to meet the full demands of his criticism. The only other 
attempted parry was what he said about Mr. Callioun's crushing 
argimient, drawn from the Tth Article of the Constitution itself. 
This is in these words : 

" Tlie ratification of the Conventions of nine States sliall be sufficient 
for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying 
the same." 

His rejoinder to this, as M'ill be seen in Mr. Curtis' article, 
stated substantially in a " nutshell," amounted to this, and this 
only; that the words '■^'between tlie States so I'atifying''^ meant 
ietween the jpeople so ratifi/ingf Does Mr. Curtis think that 
this little was all that was necessary to be said to sustain before 
an intelligent audience his position " that it was not the States 
but thej?eo/j>/<? who had entered into the compact," and not the 
people of the States separately, but the people of all the States ? 
K he does so think, so let it be. Mr. Webster, however, I sup- 
pose, thought this was a very proper occasion on which to ad- 
here to the proverb, " the least said the soonest mended." Be 
that also as it may, I can consider it as nothing but a struggling, 
inefiectual effort of a strong man, as Mr. Webster certainly was, 
to hold his own under the effects of a stunning blow! Whoever 
heard the word between so used ? Had his position been cor- 
rect, it might have been proper enough to declare that the 
Constitution should be established over or for or by the people 
so ratifying it in nine States. But what an unheard-of ?7i«j;- 
jpropriateness in the application of a word would it not be to 
speak of establishing a Constitution or any thing else between 
the x>eo])le in a collective mass ! He then doubtless felt the 
force of Mirabeau's remark, which in his speech he had quoted, 
that " words are things." He felt that the word between as it 
here stands in the Constitution is a real, a solid and tremendous 
thing ! A thing, that utterly demolished the whole superstruc- 
ture of his argument ! 

Let me ask Mr. Curtis, if this argument, to say nothing of 
many others urged by Mr. Calhoun in his reply to Mr. Webster, 



104 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

was not neio ground^ not before occupied by him ; and then let 
Mr. Curtis say to an intelligent world, whether he thinks that 
Mr. Webster's " nutshell " rejoinder did successfully meet Mr. 
Calhoun upon it ? Mr. Curtis states distinctly that " he enters 
into no vindication of the opinions of Mr. "Webster as expressed 
in 1830 and 1833." Is he not discreet in this ? For in his own 
History of the Constitution, has he not himself utterly demol- 
ished one of the main arguments of Mr. Webster, whether Mr. 
Callioun did or not ? Mr. Webster, as we have seen, broadly 
asserted that the Constitution could not be a Compact between 
the States because said he, " if our instrument of government be 
a Constitution, then for that very reason it cannot be a comjpact 
between sovereigns ; a constitution of government and a com- 
pact between sovereign powers being things essentially tinlUce 
in their very natures, and incajMhle of ever leing the sameP 
But Mr. Curtis, in his History of the Constitution, has shown 
that the first Articles of Confederation, which were a Compact 
between the Sovereign States then composing the Union, were 
a Constitution of government between the sovereign parties 
making it. These articles of union between these sovereign 
powers were, he says, " the first written Constitution of the 
United States." (Yol. i., p. 139.) And he further says that 
" the parties to this instrument (the Articles of Confederation) 
were free, sovereign, political communities, each possessing 
within itself powers of legislation and government over its own 
citizens, . which any political society can possess." !N"ow, if 
" IVIr. Webster always knew his fame was completely identified 
with the doctrine that regards the Constitution not as a com- 
pact," as Mr. Curtis said he did, then has he not himself com- 
pletely overthrown one of the main pillars on which that fame 
was erected % 

In speaking thus, I do not mean to detract from Mr. Web- 
ster's real merits, or his true fame. Wlio could be justly sup- 
posed to intend detraction from the fame of Lord Mansfield, 
either as a statesman, an orator, or a jurist, by stating that, on 
one memorable occasion, in the House of Lords, he was dumb- 
founded by Lord Chatham in reply to one of his most celebrated 
speeches — that he was for some time silent — and when forced 



MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 105 

up, laboring " under the badness of liis cause, spoke in a style 
cliaracterizcd as frigid and pettyfogging " (See "Campbell's 
Lives of Chief Justices," Vol. xi., p, 473). Mr. "Webster was 
truly a very great man, and his argument, which Mr. Calhoun 
did so thoroughly demolisli, was truly a masterpiece of tran- 
scendent intellect and eloquence combined. As evidence of the 
estimate I put upon him and his speech, I deem it proper in 
in this connection to present to your readers what I said in the 
colloquy upon both. 

" It is true, I always regarded Mr. Webster as one of the ablest of our 
statesmen ; this the bust and the picture in the Hall fully attest. In many 
respects I considered him the first man in this country, and, indeed, the first 
man of the age in which he lived. In mental power, in grasp of thought 
and in that force and manner of expression which constitute eloquence, he 
had no superior. Intellectually, he was a man of huge proportions, and 
his patriotism was of the loftiest and purest character. Such was, and is, 

my estimation of him You did well, therefore, in selecting his 

argument on this subject. It is the embodiment of all that can be said on 
your side of the question. It was the characteristic of Mr. Webster to 
leave nothing unsaid on his side of any subject he spoke on that could be 
said to strengthen it, and all that could be said he always said better than 
anybody else. Hence, whether at the bar, on the hustings, or in the 
Senate, his speeches were always the best that were made on his side. It 
used to be a remark, often made by our Chief Justice Lumpkin, who was 
a man himself of wonderful genius, profound learning, and the first of 
orators in this State, that Webster was always foremost amongst those with 
whom he acted on any question ; and that, even in books of selected 
pieces, whenever selections were made from Webster, those were the best 
in the book. This, I think, was not too great an culogium upon his tran- 
scendent powers and varied abilities. But it is not the lot of any man to be 
perfect. I am far from believing Mr. Webster free from political errors. 
And this speech of his, which, by many (his biographer included, I be- 
lieve), is considered the greatest of his life, you will allow me to say, con- 
tains more errors of this sort than any he ever made. His premises being 
erroneous, his conclusions must be of the same character. The superstruc- 
ture is grand. It is the work of a master genius. But the foundations 
are not solid. It was this speech, by the by, which gave him the appella- 
tion of the Great Expounder of the Constitution with the Consolidation- 
ists of that day. In it he did throw* all the might of his gigantic and 
Titan powers. But the subject was an overmatch for him ; the under- 
taking was too great for even him. Facts were too stubborn. His whole 
soul was in the subject, and he strove to establish what he wislicd, rather 



106 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

than wiiat actually existed. His eflbrt was to make facts bend to theory. 
Tliis could not be done. This speech, I readily admit, is the best and 
ablest that was ever made upon that side of the question. It stands as a 
monument of genius and eloquence. As such it may well take its place 
by the side of the great argument of Hume in the defence of the preroga- 
tive of the crown, claimed by the Stuarts, or Sir Robert Filmer's famous 
productions in favor of the Divine Right of Kings, or Sir George Macken- 
zie's ' Jus Regium,' " (p. 336). 

This extract from the book shows my appreciation of Mr. 
Webster, and this speech of his. But Mr. Cm-tis, in his 
attempt to point ont what he called a singular error of mine, 
has committed a very important historical error himself, which 
I do not intend to permit to pass unnoticed. In his narrative 
he says : 

"The autumn of 1833 and the winter of 1833 witnessed the crisis of 
' nullification.' The revenue laws of the United States had been prostrated 
in South Carolina by a system of State laws which directly obstructed the 
collection of any revenue whatever. It had become necessary for the 
President of the United States to act, and that President was Andrew 
Jackson. His proclamation warned the nuUiflers that their acts were acts 
of ' treason ; ' and when Congress assembled in December, he asked for the 
passage of a law adapted to the exigency, to enable him to enforce the col- 
lection of the revenue." 

Now, the facts are, the system of laws known as the Nulli- 
fying Acts of South Carolina were passed prospectively. They 
were not to go into effect until the 1st of February, 1833. By 
the interposition of the State of Virginia, through her commis- 
sioner, Benjamin Watkins Lee, the time for these laws to go 
into eifect was postponed until the close of that session of Con- 
gress, which M'as the 1th of March, under the hope and expecta- 
tion that Congress Avould redress the wrongs complained of. 
Mr. Clay's Compromise Bill on the tariff was passed in the 
mean time. This satisfied South Carolina. These laws were 
repealed. They never did go into effect, and the revenue laws 
of the United States had never been prostrated or obstructed by 
them in the State of South Carolina. 

Another matter in Mr. Curtis' article needs notice. He 
makes statements about Mr. Webster's speeches and General 
Jackson's proclamation, calculated to create the impression that 
General Jackson approved the sentiments and doctrines of this 



ME. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 107 

6i3eecli of liis on the 16th February, 1833 ; and you, Mr. Editor, 
are pleased editorially to say, that " Mr. "Webster's view of our 
constitutional system was the same with that held by the great 
body of the Democratic party at the time when General Jackson 
was President, and when a Democratic administration was 
responsible for the course of the government on a critical occa- 
sion." Now I must be permitted most respectfully, but most 
emphatically, to say that this is a great historical mistake. 
General Jackson, doubtless, felt under great obligations to Mr. 
Webster for his powerful influence and aid against the doctrine 
of nullification. To this extent I do not question he approved 
his speech in 1830 on the Foote resolutions, and his speech in 
1833 against Mr. Calhoun's resolutions ; but he did not agree 
with either of these speeches, so far as they denied the Federal 
character of the Government, or maintained that the Constitu- 
tion was not a Compact between the States as sovereign parties 
to it. Of this we have the most unquestionable testimony in 
his authoritative explanation of the proclamation given through 
the Washington Globe. In this, amongst other things, the 
editor says : 

" But we are authorized to be more explicit, and to 6ay positively 
that no part of the proclamation was meant to countenance principles 
which have been ascribed to it. On the contrary, its doctrines, if con- 
strued in the sense they were intended and carried out, inculcate that the 
Constitution of the United States is founded on compact ; that this com- 
pact derives its obligations from the agreement entered into by the people 
of each of the States in their political capacity with the people of the 
other States ; . . . . that in the case of a molation of the Constitution of the 
United States, and the usurjmtion of 2)ov-ers not granted hy it on the part of 
the functionaries of the General Government, the State governments have the 
right to interpose, and arrest the evil upon the principles ichich itere set 
fatrth in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 against the Alien and Sedition 
laws, c£r." 

In another part of the same authoritative explanation, it is 
said : 

"The close of the preamble which we have quoted above, in connection 
with its first words, preserves the same idea. The Constitution is declared 
to be established, not for an aggregate people, but '/or the United States of 
America.^ " 



108 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

Such were the views of General Jackson and the great ma- 
jority of the Democratic party at that time, and such have been 
the views of the great majority of the Democratic party from 
the days of Jefferson to this day, and ever will be so long as it 
maintains the true standard of its time-honored principles. How 
these j)rinciples were considered by the great majority of the 
Democratic party and the great majority of the people of the 
United States, at that time and subsequently, may be judged by 
the actions of their duly accredited representatives on record. 
Mr. Calhoun's resolutions were not acted on in the Senate in 
1833. Tlu'ce days after his speech upon them the controversy 
with South Carolina w^as settled by the passage of Mr. Clay's 
Compromise Bill. Congress adjourned the 4th of March ; but 
the agitation of these principles did not cease, as is stated in the 
book, and that part of it which Mr. Curtis reviews (p. 398). 
The subject of the discussion, though the controversy that gave 
rise to it was amicably adjusted, was taken up by the press, by 
public speakers, by the State Legislatures, and by the people 
generally. The great discussions of 1798, 1T99, and 1800 were 
revived. Old landmarks of principles were traced, and the rapid 
strides of the Federal government towards consolidation were 
again stopped. Mr. Calhoun, on the 28th of December, 1837, 
renewed the subject in the Senate. He then brought forward 
another set of resolutions on the same subject, and pressed them 
to a vote. The first of these resolutions is as follows : 

" 1. Resolved^ That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution the 
States adopting the same acted severally as free, indeiicndent, and sover- 
eign States ; and that each for itself by its own voluntary assent entered 
the Union with a view to its increased security against all dangers, domes- 
tic as well as foreign, and the more perfect and secure enjoyment of its 
advantages, natural, political, and social." 

This resolution, which distinctly affirms the great truth set 
forth in the first of his series in 1833, passed the Senate, by 
the large majority of 32 to 13, on the 3d day of January, 1838. 
{Congressional Globe ^ Second Sessioii, ^Uh Congress, p. 74.) 
This was certainly the liiglicst authoritative exposition of the 
subject that could be given. It was the amplest vindication 
of tlie merits of Mr. Calhoun's argument in 1833. His argu- 



ME. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 109 

inent and Mr. "Webster's had gone to tlie country, and this 
was the verdict of tlic States upon the issue presented by them. 
More than two to one of the Senate of the United States af- 
firmed most positively and solemnly that the Union of the 
States was Federal, and that in entering into it, under the 
Constitution, the States did so severally as free, independent, 
sovereign powers ; that the Union was one of States, formed 
by States, and not by the people in the aggregate as one 
nation. But upon an analysis of the vote upon this resolution 
this authoritative exposition of Constitutional views derives 
increased importance. For, if we look at the vote by States, 
it will be seen that eighteen States voted for this resolution, 
while only six voted against it. One was di\aded and one 
did not vote. More than tico-thirds of the States gave this 
construction of tlie character of the Government in 1838, in 
direct opposition to the views of Mr. Webster in 1833. It is 
true Mr. Webster was in the Senate in 1838, and did not vote 
for this resolution of Mr. Calhoun, then passed ; but he did 
not tahe up the gauntlet thrown down by Mr. Calhoun for 
another contest in debate on the principles thus reannounced. 
Mr. Clay, however, voted for it, which shows his understand- 
ing of the nature of the Government. 

The facts above stated, Mr. Editor, show how far Mi-. Cur- 
tis was correct in saying any thing calculated to make the im- 
pression that General Jackson approved the principles of Mr. 
AVebster's speeches in 1830 and 1833 ; and how ftir you are 
correct in stating that " Mr. "Webster's view of our Constitu- 
tional System was the same with that held by the great body 
of the Democratic party at the time when General Jackson was 
President, and when a Democratic administration was respon- 
sible for the course of the Government on a critical occasion." 
This party was in power in 1837 and 1838. Mr. Yan Buren 
was President, but Mr. Calhoun was still " master of the 
arena " in the Senate upon the principles of his resolution of 
1833, with Mr. Clay as his backer ! 

Here I might very properly close this communication, which 
is intended only to reply to Mr. Curtis' article, that was given 
to the public as a, refutation of certain assertions of mine, in 



110 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

that part of tlie book he took in hand to review ; and here I 
slioiikl close it if he had not, in the execution of his pnrpose, 
travelled somewhat out of the limits he prescribed for himself, 
and in several jiarts of his article trenched, by indirection at 
least, npon other matters, questions, and principles discussed in 
other parts of the book, which are not to be found in the por- 
tion he undertook specially to notice. These other questions 
and principles, and the logical sequences claimed from all the 
facts in our history, first established heyond doiibt or question, 
and especially from the great fact that the Constitution is a 
Compact between Sovereign States, are doubtless what led him 
to say so much about State Secession in connection with Sover- 
eignty, and the opinion of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. AVebster upon 
them. On these general topics, so introduced into his article, 
I wish, in conclusion, to add a few general remarks only, and 
ask your further indulgence for that purpose. Should Mr. 
Curtis, or any one else, feel disposed directly to assail any of 
the positions of the book on these other questions, either in 
premises or conclusions, it will be time enough then for me to 
undertake their defence. One of the matters so introduced, as 
I have stated, in Mr. Curtis' article, and which I wish now in 
a general way to notice, is embraced in his explanation of Mr. 
"Webster's speech before the Supreme Court, and is expressed 
in the following words : 

" Of course, in order to make the comity of nations, in this respect, 
applicable to the States of this Union in their relations with each other, it 
is necessary to regard each State as, for certain purposes, a nation ; or, in 
other words, to regard it as a sovereign State; for such a State alone can 
be affected by the law of nations, as it exists Avhen not curtailed by the 
sovereign will, or can declare by legislation, or by its public policy, that 
it docs not mean to be bound by a particular rule of that law. But 
neither Mr. Webster nor any one else, in claiming that the States are sov- 
ereign in respect to their liability to be affected by the voluntary law of 
nations, in their relations to the citizens of other States, in matters of 
property, there by admits that they are sovereign in respect to their ca- 
pacity to withdraw from the Union. It is remarkable that Mr. Stephens 
should have confounded these two things, which are as wide asunder as 
the poles." 

Now it is apparent that Mr. Curtis in th^se remarks alludes 
to matters or positions of mine not in that part of the book he 



MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. HI 

undertook specially to review. There is nothing about the 
riglit or Ccapacity of a State to withdraw from the Union in 
any of the extracts produced by him. This, therefore, is a sort 
of side-bar remark of his upon points which he eschewed to 
enter upon when he set out. But I say to him most respect- 
fully, for I do entertain for him personally the highest respect 
and kindest regards, that tliere is in no part of the book any 
"confounding" of things of this sort, or of any things of any 
sort whatever. There is in it from beginning to end no med- 
dling with things which I did not clearly perceive and do not 
thoroughly understand. 

If there is any confusion of ideas on this subject, I appre- 
hend that it is with himself in supposing that a State or nation 
can be sovereign for onejnirpose and not sovereign for all 2>ur- 
poses which lie within the domain of sovereignty itself. He 
in another place (where he indulges in a similar course of re- 
marks) distinctly maintains that sovereignty is divisible^ and 
says that Mr. Webster so held too. If so, when or where ? I 
certainly do not recollect of ever having seen any thing from 
him announcing such a doctrine. 

Sovereignty is the paramount authority in any State or 
nation, to which all other powers or authority must yield. It 
is that absolute right of self-determination, in any separate and 
distinct political body, which, in pursuit of the well-being of its 
own organism, without injury to others, cannot be rightfully 
interfered with' by any other similar body. It is that attribute 
of the political body which corresponds with the loill and power 
of self-action in the physical body, and hy its very nature is in- 
divisible. Just as much so as tJie mind is, in the individual or- 
ganism. 

" Sic volo, sic juheo ; stat iwo ratione voluntas " — " Thus I 
wish and order ; my will stands in the place of reason " — is the 
language of sovereignty. There have been many methods 
adopted to give exact ideas of this attribute or essential quality 
of the body politic — some by definitions, and some by descrip- 
tions. But all publicists of note in both ancient and modern 
times agree in holding that it is in itself indivisible. Aristotle 
so held ; Grotius so held ; Puffendorff so held ; Yattel so held ; 



112 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

and our own Liebcr and Jameson so liold ; to say nothing of 
otliers. Sovereignty and allegiance, all agree, go together. 
The latter follows the former. If sovereignty were divisible, 
then allegiance would be also. But we have it from the Head 
of a much higher school than that of either Mr. Webster or Mr. 
Calhoun, that " no onan can serve kvo masters.''^ 

. The " confounding " in this matter, is on the part of Mr. 
Curtis, in not recognizing the difference between the exercise 
of sovereign ])owers and sovereignty itself, from which the pow- 
ers exercised emanate. The exercise of sovereign powers may 
be delegated, and the exercise of different powers of this kind 
may in this way be intrusted to different hands. In this way, 
and in this way only, can even the exercise of sovereign pow- 
ers be divided. And in this way they are so divided in all 
Free States. 

The Legislative power, the Judicial power, and the Execu- 
tive power are all sovereign powers ; and yet in this country, 
and in all countries where despotism does not prevail, they are 
thus divided, and the exercise of them is committed to separate 
and distinct hands, in trust, by delegation. Sovereignty itself, 
however, from which they all emanate, remains, meanwhile, tJie 
same indivisible unit. This is the trinity in unity exhibited in 
all properly constituted Representative Governments. ]^or is 
the delegation to another of the right to exercise a power of any 
hind, whether sovereign or not, in any sense an alienation of it. 
The fact of its being delegated shows that the source from 
which the delegation proceeds continues to exist. 

Mr. Webster doubtless held, as his great speech referred to 
shows, that the right to exercise sovereign powers may be and 
is delegated, and that in this way the exercise of sovereign 
powers may be, and is divided. Mr. Calhoun certainly so held. 
An essential point of difference between Mr. Webster and Mr. 
Calhoun on that occasion was, whether the sovereign powers 
intrusted to the General Government came by delegation from 
the sovereignty of the several States, as sejjarate, distinct 
bodies politic, or nations (thus forming a Federal Republic, of 
which the States, as States, w^erc the members and parties), or 



ME. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. CURTIS. 113 

from tlic sovereignty of the whole people of all the States, 
united as one body politic, or one nation. 

While sovereignty itself then, by all writers of note, is held 
to be indivisible, and by most of them to be inalietiahle, yet it 
is nevertheless universally admitted by all of them that it may 
impose obligations upon itselft In other words, it is admitted 
that Sovereign States may enter into voluntary engagement 
with each other touching the exercise of any of their sovereign 
powers they choose, even to the putting of restraints upon 
their own exercise of them without imjKuring in the least or 
jyartmg with any i^ortion of their sovereignty itself. This is 
the basis of all treaties, conventions, or compacts of any sort 
between separate States or nations. This, too, is the basis of 
all Confederations or Federal Unions. But in these voluntary 
restraints upon the exercise of any of their sovereign powers, 
there is no surrender of the right. Hence, in all such cases, 
each State, notwithstanding these voluntarily imposed re- 
straints, remains a perfect State, a Sovereign State, and as such 
continues (as maintained by Mr. Webster) " as much a compo- 
nent part of the laws of nations as any others ; " and as letween 
themselves all such States are as much subject to the laws of na- 
tions upon all questions or controversies in the last resort, as 
any other Sovereign States or nations whatever. Such is ex- 
actly the condition of the States of this Union as maintained 
throughout the book. So much for Mr. Curtis' idea of the di- 
visibility of sovereignty, and of my having " confounded " on 
the subject " two things as wide asunder as the poles." 

But again, in several parts of his article, he speaks as if he 
were under the impression that Mr. Calhoun considered the 
right of a State of our Union to withdraw, or secede, as a right 
deHved from the Constitution ; he seems also to be under the 
impression that I have defended the rightfulness of that meas- 
ure upon the same ground. In these views he is entirely mis- 
taken. Mr. Calhoun did maintain that N%dlification was a 
Constitutional remedy, but not Secession. And if Mr. Curtis 
will give the other portions of the book a more careful perusal, 
he will see very clearly that I have not defended the Itightful- 
ness of Secession upon any gi-ounds derived from any pro- 
8 



114 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

vision in tlie Constitution. On page 500 lie will see it tlius 
stated : 

" This right of a State to consider herself no longer bound by a Com- 
pact which,' in her judgment, has been broken by her confederates, and to 
secede from a Union, formed as ours was, has nothing about it either new 
or novel. It is incident to all Federatl Republics. It is not derived from 
the Compact itself. It does not spring from it at all. It is derived from 
the same source that the right is derived to abrogate a treaty by either or 
any of the parties to it. Tliat is seldom set fortli in the treaty itself, and 
yet it exists, whether it be set forth or not. So, in any Federal Compact 
whatever, the parties may or may not expressly provide for breaches of it. 
But where no such provision is made, the right exists by the same laws of 
nations which govern in all matters of treaties or conventions between 
sovereigns." 

On page 496, he will see my answer to the direct question, 
whether a State of our Union could so act without a violation 
of her solemn obligations under the compact ? It is in these 
words : 

" I give this full and direct answer : slie had a perfect right so to do, 
subject to no authority but the great moral law which governs the inter- 
course between independent sovereign powers, peoples, or nations." 

There is nothing in the book which treats Secession as a 
right derived from the Constitution. It is, on the contrary, a 
right derived from that Sovereign Power which made the Con- 
stitution. Yours, respectfully, 

Alexaitder H. Stephens. 



III. — REJomDER OF Mr. Curtis. 

I have read Mr. Stephens' answer to my defence of Mr. 
Webster against the imputation of having changed his opinions 
on tlie nature of the Constitution. My reply will be brief. 

There are two theories respecting the Constitution of the 
United States. According to the one, it is a regular popular 
Government, of a limited character, formed by the gi-ant of 
certain specified powers which the people of each State thought 
fit to sever from the whole mass of their respective sovereign- 



REJOINDER OF MR. CURTIS. 115 

ties ; and this Government, so constituted, operates to the ex- 
tent of its enumerated powers, directly upon all individuals in 
the United States, just as a State Government operates to the 
extent of the powers which its people have reserved to them- 
selves, directly, upoif all the individuals in the State. This is 
the "Wehstcr theory, as I understand it. 

The other theory is, that the Constitution is a Compact be- 
tween Sovereign States, formed by the delegation of certain 
political powers, which the people of the several States did not 
sever and alienate from the whole mass of their respective sover- 
eignties, but which they agreed with each other, through the 
Constitution, should be exercised by a common depositary or 
agent. This is the Calhoun theory, as I understand it. 

I do not mean that "either of these statements comprehends 
all that is peculiar to the two opposite tlieories, but they are 
enough to mark, for the present purpose, the broad line of dis- 
tinction between them. 

All who are accustomed to reason on these subjects are per- 
fectly aware that, if the first of these tlieories is the true one, 
there can be no lawful resistance by the people of a State, to the 
exercise of the powers conferred in the Constitution, and no 
la^-ful withdrawal of those powers. On the other hand, if the 
second of these theories is the true one, the sovereign parties to 
the compact who have only delegated, not alienated, some of 
their .political powers, can break that compact whenever they 
see fit, incurring only the penalty which attaches to any sover- 
eign who breaks a treaty — namely, a liability to war to be waged 
by the parties who adhere to the compact. 

Now, Mr. Editor, I found it, in a book wi'itten by Mr. 
Stephens, imputed to Daniel ^yebster that, whereas in 1830-33 
he held, and had always held, and had assisted ilie Government 
of the United States to enforce^ the first of these theories, he 
subsecjucntly changed his opinions, and came to regard the Con- 
stitution as a " Compact between Sovereign States." I under- 
took to show that there was no foundation for the suggestion ; 
with wliat success the public can judge. I do not propose to 
repeat the arguments or the proofs. 

Mr. Stephens complains that I represented him as having 



116 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED, 

charged Mr. Webster witli the adoption of the doctrine and 
right of State secession from the Union ; which he says he did 
not charge, and he adds that he does not suppose Mr. "Webster 
ever beheved in it. But I did not so represent Mr. Stephens' 
charge or assertion or position. My language was guarded and 
chosen. I said that he had imputed to Mr. "Webster that he 
had become a convert, or almost a convert, to those mews of 
State sovereignty on which the doctrine, or supposed right, of 
State secession '^^ founded by those who do believe in it. This 
is exactly what Mr. Stephens labored to show in his book, in 
regard to Mr. "Webster's change of views, and it is what he now 
writes a second argument to prove. He thinks Mr. "Webster so 
far changed his opinions as to regard the Constitution as a 
"Compact between Sovereign States.'' This I denied. He 
thinks, if I understand him rightly, that Mr. "Webster could 
regard the Constitution of the United States as being a comjmct 
between sovereign States and at the same time reject the right 
of secession. This I maintain could not be done by Mr. Web- 
ster or any other man. 

Mr. Stephens finds fault with me for saying that President 
Jackson, in 1832-3, gave his sanction to Mr. Webster's views 
as maintained in 1830 against Mr. Hayne ; and he finds fault 
with you, Mr. Editor, for saying in your editorial columns that 
Mr. Webster's view of the nature of the Constitution " was the 
same with that held by the great body of the Democratia party 
at the time when General Jackson was President, and when a 
Democratic administration was responsible for the course of the 
Government on a critical occasion." Mr. Stephens, in opposi- 
tion to this statement, reiterates what he had quoted in his book, 
namely, an editorial article of the Globe newspaper, in which 
the conductors of that paper undertook to qualify and explain 
away the doctrines of the President's proclamation against the 
Nullifiers, and said that they did this " by authority." Now, 
sir, it is quite notorious that there were pohticians in the Demo- 
cratic party at that time (chiefly Southern men) who were 
greatly dissatisfied with Gen. Jackson's proclamation, and who 
affected to disbelieve that the President had asked the Judiciary 
Committee of the Senate for the extraordinary powers embraced 



REJOINDER OF MR. CURTIS. 117 

in the Force Bill, until Mr. Webster told tliem in the Senate, 
in the plainest terms, what he personally knew, that the Presi- 
dent had asked for those powers, " no matter how high may be 
the offence." It is quite true, however, that there was no justi- 
fication for the Force Bill, excepting upon the grounds taken in 
the previous proclamation and in the President's special message 
after the steps of the Nullificrs in South Carolina had produced, 
the crisis which made it necessary for the President to act. If 
those gi'ounds were true — and they were so entirely in accord- 
ance with Mr. Webster's opinions that the moment he saw them 
announced by the Executive he resolved to support the admin- 
istration in this contest, against everybody, regardless of all 
former differences — then General Jackson was a patriot Presi- 
dent, acting entirely within the scope and intent of the Con 
stitution. If those grounds were not true, if the Constitution 
was a " Compact between Sovereign States," General Jackson 
was, as the Legislature of South Carolina after the proclamation 
denounced him, a tyrant and a usurper, and nullification was a 
lawful and constitutional remedy against the alleged wrongs 
of the tariff. On this great issue there was a minority in the 
Democratic party who did not like the President's attitude ; 
and it is doubtless true that, for certain electioneering purposes, 
chiefly wanted in Virginia, the conductors of the Globe persuaded 
the " old hero " to let them put forth the article which Mr. 
Stephens quotes, and which was the merest muddle^ from which 
no man can extract any intelligible theory of the nature of our 
constitutional system. To say that a President's constitutional 
opinions, as expressed and acted upon in important State papers, 
over his official signature, and carried out in acts of Congress 
approved by him, are to be qualified in history by an electioneer- 
ing article in a newspaper, designed to soothe some of his irri- 
tated followers, is a new way of authenticating the doctrines 
which the official head of a great party, and the official head of 
the Government, meant to impress upon the Constitution as its 
rightful construction. 

But, sir, if there were time and space for it, I could take 
issue with Mr. Stephens on this question of what was regarded 
by the great body of the Democratic party at the time in ques- 



118 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

tion, as the truth, in respect to the difference between Mr. 
"Webster and Mr. Callioun on the nature of the Constitution. 
I could print a volume of letters addressed to Mr. Webster by 
prominent Democrats tlrroughout the North and West, and by 
not a few in the South, both in 1830 and 1833, assuring him 
that they concurred in his constitutional opinions about the 
■character of the Constitution, and thanking him in the warmest 
terms for what he had done in those great debates. But I will 
print but one. It was written to Mr. Webster by Mr. Madison 
after the debate of 1833, in which Mr. Stephens thinks Mr. 
Calhoun annihilated Mr. Webster. Mr. Madison, I presume it 
will be allowed, was a _ Democrat, At all events, he was one 
of the authors of the much misunderstood and misrepresented 
Yii'ginia and Kentucky Eesolutions of 1798. He was as much 
entitled to know what w^as good Democratic doctrine as any 
man then alive ; and he was as much entitled to know what the 
Constitution is as any man who had lived then or is living now. 
The following letter was printed in Mr. Fletcher Webster's 
collection of his father's correspondence, under an erroneous 
date (1830), as if it referred to the reply to Hayne. It was 
written in 1833, after the debate with Calhoun, and it is printed 
with its correct date in Mr. Madison's works. I copy from the 
autograph letter ', and it will be seen that there is no difference 
between Mr. Webster's nnderstanding of the Constitution and 
Mr. Madison's. The letter also incidentally throws some light 
on the well-known purpose of the Globe article : 
• 

[Mk. Madison to Mk. Webster.] 

MoNTPELiER, March 15, 1833. 

Dear Sir : — I return my thanks for the copy of your late very power- 
ful speech in the Senate of the United States. It crushes " nullification," 
and must hasten an abandonment of Secession. But this dodges the blow, 
by confounding the claim to secede at will with the right of seceding 
from intolerable oppression. * 

The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith 
solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about 
which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, 
with the countenance received from certain quarters, is giving it a popular 
currency here, which may influence the approaching elections, both for 



REJOINDER OF MR. CURTIS. 119 

Congress and for the State Legislatures. It has gained some advantage, 
also, by mixing itself with the question, whether the Constitution of the 
United States was formed by the people or by the States, now under a 
theoretic discussion by animated partisans. 

It is fortunate when disputed theories can be decided by undisputed 
facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made 
by the peoijle, but as embodied into the several States who were parties 
to it, and therefore made by the States, in their highest authoritative 
capacity. 

They might, by the same authority and by the same process, have 
converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty, or continued it 
with enlarged or unabridged powers ; or have embodied the peojile of 
their respective States into one people, nation, or sovereignty; or, as they 
did by a mixed, make them one people, nation, or sovereignty for cehain 
purposes, and not so for others. 

The Constitution of the United States being established by a compe- 
tent authority — by that of the people of the several States, who were the 
parties to it — it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is, and here it 
speaks for itself. It organizes a government into the usual Legislative, 
Executive, and Judiciary departments; invests it with specified powers, 
leaving others to the parties to the Constitution ; it makes the Govern- 
ment to operate directly on the people ; places at its command the needful 
physical means of executing its powers; and, finally, proclaims its su- 
premacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the constitu- 
tions and laws of the States ; the powers of the Government being exer- 
cised, as in other elective and responsible Governments, under the control 
of its constituents, the people and Legislatures of the States, and subject 
to the revolutionary rights of the people in extreme cases. 

Such is the Constitution of the United States dejure and de facto; and 
the name, whatever it be that may be given to it, can make it nothing 
more nor less than what it actually is. 

Pardon this hasty effusion, which, whether according or not precisely 

with your ideas, presents, I am aware, none that are new to you. 

With great esteem and cordial salutation, 

James Madisox. 

It would be difficult to find fault witli this description of 
wliat the Constitution is, as it is impossible to find in it the doc- 
trine of Compact between Sovereign States. Mr. Madison had 
too accurate a mind not to see that the right to secede at will 
involves a violation without cause of a faith solemnly pledged ; 
and that the right of seceding from intolerable oppression is 
simply the right of revolution, which exists at all times against 



120 THE KEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

all governments, be tlicir nature what it may. E"or was Mr. 
Madison so inaccurate, or so fine in liis political metaphysics, as 
not to see that the peoples of independent States can make 
themselves one jJeople, nation, or sovereignty, for certain pur- 
poses and not so for others. 

And now, Mr. Editor, let me conclude this controversy, so 
far as I am concerned, by asking to what, but to the doctrine 
that the Constitution was a " compact between sovereign States," 
do we owe the fact that we are now living under a kind of mili- 
tary despotism carried on through the forms of the Constitu- 
tion ? Look at what is transacting at this moment in and in 
regard to Virginia ; her people treated exactly as if they had 
been a foreign sovereignty conquered in a regular war ; held to 
be out of the Union ; ordered to make a Sktate Constitution to 
suit the views of Congress ; ordered to ratify a certain amend- 
ment of the Federal Constitution ; and held in suspense as to 
her relations to the Union until she has satisfied the demands 
of the only true " Consolidationists " that we have ever had in 
our political history. To what, I repeat, do we owe this state 
of afiairs ? If the Constitution was a " Compact between Sov- 
ereign States," the compact was broken by the secession of the 
Southern States ; and it was perfectly legitimate for Congress 
to make war upon the States themselves, to conquer them as 
sovereign parties to a war, and, having conquered them, to sup- 
press their governments, and to mould them just as it would 
mould a foreign territory conquered by arms or acquired by 
treaty. On the other hand, if the Constitution was what Mr. 
"Webster always maintained it to be. Treason was an individual 
offence, liable as such to punishment, not by ex post facto laws 
of disfranchisement or any subsequently created disqualifica- 
tions, but according to the provisions of the Constitution and 
the previous laws of the land ; the rebellion was a mere insur- 
rection ; there could be no war upon the States in the sense of 
making conquests of the States themselves ; and, consequently, 
there could be no reconstruction and no dictation of conditions 
involving the question whether the States were in or out of the 
Union after the insurrection was over. But Congress, by legis- 
lation, said to the Southern professors of the doctrine that the 



KEJOINDER OF ME. CURTIS. 121 

Constitution is a Compact between Sovereign States : " We take 
you at your word ; you broke tlie Compact ; vre have conquered 
you as States that have broken a treaty ; now take the conse- 
quences, and get back into the Union when we choose to take 
from your necks the iron lieel of our military power." Has not 
this been the result ? And is this the government of our 
fathers ? Is this the Constitution w^hich "Washington and Mad- 
ison framed and administered ; which Hamilton and Webster 
expounded; which Jackson prepared himself to carry out? It 
is neither of them. It is a hybrid, born of the notion that a 
popular government — which acts directly on individuals and 
rests for its sanctions on the will of the people, and has its own 
accurate definition of Treason drawn from the purified foun- 
tains of the common law — is an inter-State league between a 
group of sovereign powers, which one party may break and be 
punished for breaking by an international conquest. I confess, 
Mr. Editor, when I see or hear persons who are accounted 
Democrats maintaining State Rights upon the Calhoun theory 
of our system, I can only wish they would point out to me 
upon what possible ground of public law or political science 
they can complain of what has been done by Congress to the 
South. Perhaps there are those in the South, disciples of the 
doctrine of Compact, who, in strict consistency, do not complain 
of it. But we of the North have State Rights of our o^vn to 
defend, if haply there is any remaining means of defending 
them, and it behooves us to know on what ground they can be 
defended. It behooves us to see that the idea of treating the 
Constitution as a Compact between sovereign parties to an 
inter-State league is the merest delusion for those who mean to 
confine the general government to the sphere of its legitimate 
and enumerated powers, and to assert the rights of the States 
over all other subjects. The doctrine of "Compact" was a 
snare which some of the great men of the South unwittingly 
laid for the feet of their own people. They would not accept 
Mr. Webster's firm position on the subject of slavery, confining 
it where it was before the acquisition of Texas, defending it by 
the unquestionable trutb that, in the States where it then ex- 
isted, the JSTorth could not rightfully touch it, and thus leaving 



122 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

it to be gradually worn out by tlie imperceptible but sure opera- 
tion of causes that were destined to extinguish it. They sought 
for political defences of this institution by enlarging its area ; 
and they conceived, what the previous generation had not con- 
ceived, that the Constitution being a Compact between Sover- 
eign States, two consequences would follow: frst, that the 
Constitution, pro^prio vigore, would give them a right to carry 
slavery into the public domain, which was the common property 
of States thus united ; second, that, if this right were not ad- 
mitted, the compact could be broken by secession, and that 
there would be a case justifying that step. For all this there 
was more or less provocation and incitement in what was going 
on in the North ; but the grand error that was committed at 
the South was in not seeing that the true defence of slavery, as 
a State institution, rested like the defence of all other State 
Rights, upon the doctrine that the Constitution is no compact, 
but a fundamental law, limiting the sphere of the general gov- 
ernment by the sanctions of enacted law, and containing, as 
part of the same enacted law, the strenuously asserted principle 
that all the powers of government, not embraced in the Con- 
stitution, and not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to 
the States or the people. And now that the doctrine of com- 
pact has been played out to its legitimate and inevitable end ; 
now that the very result has come which Mr. Webster foresaw 
and foretold ; now that our institutions are converted, perhaps 
beyond redemption, into what he predicted they would become 
if the practical operation of Mr. Calhoun's theories should pro- 
duce a civil war ; now that we have reaped the fruits of these 
theories, by the excuse which they have afforded for a kind of 
government that " out-herods Herod " in the assertion of the 
compact principle, arid makes the government of our fathers a 
military colossus — it is, I admit, with some impatience that I 
hear Mr. Webster claimed as a believer in the doctrine which 
he spent more than twenty years of his life in resisting, and 
which he knew would ruin us at last. 

G. T. C. 

New Yoke, September, 18C9. 



SUR-REJOINDER OF MR. STEPHENS. 123 



lY. — SUR-BEJOINDEE OF Mr. STEPHENS. 

Liberty Haxl, ) 

Crawfordtille, Ga., Scptaahcr 25, 1869. ) 

Messrs. Editors of tJie New Yorh World : 

In your paper of the 13th instant, which reached me a few 
days ago through the kind attentions of a friend, I see what 
purports to be a rejoinder of Hon. George T. Curtis to my 
reply to his article in review of that part of my book upon the 
late war between the States which relates to the opinions of 
Mr. Webster, as expressed in 1833, upon the subject of the 
Constitution of the United States being a Compact between 
the States, and his subsequent modification of those opinions 
or views. 

In this "rejoinder," so called, Mr. Curtis has, as your 
readers perceive, M'idely wandered from the points and issues 
between us raised by his review and my reply to it. lie makes 
but one allusion in it to any of them. He has virtually aban- 
doned his own chosen and limited topics of discussion — gone 
ofi" into entirely new matter, and after presenting other and 
altogether new questions about two difierent theories of govern- 
ment, &c., concludes, so far as he is concerned, the controversy 
on the points he had at first raised. 

Now, I am quite as little inclined to pursue a ramhling con- 
troversy, as Mr. Curtis evidently is to stand by the results of 
the one which he commenced with so much zeal and ardor; but 
from which he so "impatiently" retires. The rule with me is: 
One thing at a time, and all things in their order. Discussions 
are seldom either entertaining or instructive which are not con- 
fined as they advance step by step to the immediate points 
imdcr consideration at the time. In this way only can any 
real progress ever be made towards the establishment of any 
truth by reason and argument. 

It is not my intention, however, to permit the new ques- 
tions now presented by him to pass unnoticed. They are them- 
selves of too much importance. But, before taking them up, 
it is proper first to see how matters stand between us upon 



124 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

those lieretofore raised by him. It is better, in discussions as 
in navigation — to use one of Mr. "Webster's illustrations — to 
make a reckoning and see where we are, before taking a new 
departure. For this purpose I propose to recapitulate and ex- 
amine the previous points. of our controversy as briefly as pos- 
sible in their order. 

First, the three points ra;ised by him in his review; and 
secondly, the tM'o raised by me on him in the reply. Let these 
facts, then, be kept in mind by your readers : 

1. Mr. Curtis, in his review, said: 

"But I may be permitted to express tlie astonishment with -which I 
have read a jDortion of Mr. Stephens' recent publication, in which he 
claims that Mr. Webster, in tliG later years of his life, changed his opin- 
ions respecting the nature of the Constitution, and became a convert, or 
almost a convert, to the views of State sovereignty, on which the right 
of State secession from the Union was claimed by Mr. Calhoun and his 
disciples as a right under the Constitution." 

In the reply, issue was joined with Mr. Curtis upon the fact 
that there was any such statement, assertion, or claim in any 
part of the book to which he referred. It was also denied that 
Mr. Calhoun or his disciples ever claimed the right of State 
Secession from the Union as a right under the Constitution. 
Of Mr. "Webster, it was simply affirmed that, in 1833, he had 
held the position that the Constitution was not a Compact be- 
tween the States, and that, subsequently, in his argument before 
the Supreme Court, and in his letter to the Barings, he had 
used language which, in my opinion, showed that he had modi- 
fied the opinions so previously expressed by him upon that 
point. It is also affirmed in the book that, in 1851, at Capon 
Springs, he spoke in unequivocal language of the Constitution 
as a Compact to which the States were parties. The proofs 
were given. Mr. Curtis admits their correctness. Do they not 
fully sustain what was affirmed in the book ? At any rate thus 
stands the issue between us ; and how does Mr. Curtis treat it 
in his rejoinder ? Does he pretend to show that there is any 
thing in the book to sustain his statement, as it stands in the 
review, or any thing which should have caused astonishment 
to anybody as well acquainted with the facts as he ought to 



SUE-REJOINDER OF MR. STEPHEN'S. 125 

have been ? Does he even undertake to show that he was cor- 
rect in declaring that Mr. Calhoun or his disciples claimed the 
right of State Secession under the Constitution? Does he 
make any answer to my respectful appeal to him to give any 
explanation he can imagine Mr. Webster could possibly have 
given of his speech before the Supreme Court referred to, with- 
out admitting a change of his views as expressed in 1833 ? He 
does not, but goes oft' in his sort of dissertation upon two theo- 
ries concerning the nature of the government. Now, I say in 
passing, right here, to Mr. Curtis, that these two theories of the 
government have nothing to do with this issue between us. 
That was the isolated point whether Mr. Webster had or had 
not modified or changed his opinions upon the subject of the 
Constitution being a Compact between the States. I ask him 
also, as well as your readers, if I am not warranted by his 
silence on that point in coming to the conclusion that he can- 
not explain Mr. Webster's position in 1830 without admitting 
the change of views ascribed to him in the book ? That was 
the point at issue between him and me. I do come to this 
conclusion, and am perfectly willing, therefore, so far as I am 
concerned, to let the controversy on that point rest just where 
and as it stands. 

2. Mr. Curtis, in his review, said : 

"As an historian, Mr. Stephens is singularly unfortunate. He cited 
Mr. Webster for the purpose of proving that he had come, in 1851, to 
regard the Constitution as a compact between the States, yet he overlooked 
the passages in the same speech which showed that he did not so regard 
it." 

This was a grave charge. The Italics are his. The reply 
was that, if there were any passages in the speech (the Capon 
Springs speech) from which the citation was made that did 
show, or tended even to show, that he did not regard the Con- 
stitution as a Compact -between the States, as his language cited 
clearly showed that he then so held it to be, they had escaped 
my attention at the time the citation was made ; and after the 
most diligent search I was still unable to find in any part of 
the speech any such qualifying language as he intimated was to 
be found in some other portions of it. 



12G THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

How lias Mr. Curtis met this issue ? Has lie undertalcen to 
point out in the speech any such passages as he said I had over- 
looked? He has not. He has not produced one word from 
the speech which shows, or tends to show, that Mr. "Webster 
did not mean, as I understood him by the language cited, to 
declare that the Constitution was a Compact between the States, 
and that " a bargain cannot be broken on one side and still 
bind the other side? " 

The "rejoinder" is entirely silent upon that subject. The 
conclusion to which all intelligent readers must come, it seems 
to me, is that Mr. Curtis gives up that point in issue between 
us. Not without some restlessness, it is true, which is evinced 
in the expression of ^^ im^Mtience^^ with which he hears "Mr. 
Webster claimed as a believer in the doctrine which he spent 
more than twenty years of his life in resisting, and which he 
knew would ruin us at last." This is, perhaps, what caused 
him to change his ground and endeavor to relieve his position 
as well as he could by plunging into other matters. 

Now, the truth, Mr. Editor, is that the Constitution of the 
United States is a Compact between Sovereign States. This is 
a great and an important fact in our history. Upon it does 
depend the nature and character of our government. Mr. 
"Webster's position on that subject in 1833 is utterly untenable. 
"Whether he subsequently modified or changed his opinions 
upon it or not, however, is a collateral point altogether. The 
great truth that it is such a Compact is established in the book 
referred to as clearly as any historic fact can be in this or any 
other country. The argument by which this fact is so estab- 
lished, Mr. Curtis does not pretend to answer. He has not, as 
yet, attempted to do it, and I here repeat that if he or anybody 
else shall attempt directly to assail it, either in premises or con- 
elusions, I hold myself in readiness to meet the assault, let it 
come from whatever quarter it may. Ih the book it was barely 
incidentally stated as my opinion that Mr. "Webster had changed 
his views upon that subject ; but whether he had changed them 
or not has no bearing whatever upon the argument itself, 
or any link in the chain of its structure. It was to the inci- 
dental remarks in the book, upon his supposed change of views, 



SUR-REJOINDER OF MR. STEPHENS. 127 

that Mr. Curtis took exception. How mucli lie lias taken by 
his motion the public may now judge. I feel perfectly content 
"vrith this issue also as it stands. 

3. Mr. Curtis, in his review, stated that I had committed " a 
singular error" in the book in regard to the order of the debate 
between Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun in the Senate in 1833, 
and argued from a version he gave of it that no regular or gen- 
eral rejoinder to Mr. Calhoun's speech was called for from Mr. 
"Webster. 

The reply to this by me set forth the facts of the case. 
These show that no such error was committed in the book. 
They show that Mr. Calhoun's speech did present new views 
never before presented in the Senate by him, which not only 
called for biit demanded an answer, or an abandonment by Mr. 
"Webster of his positions. 

To this issue Mr. Curtis makes no allusion whatever. Is not 
the conclusion legitimate that he now admits there was no error 
in the book on that point ? I so regard it. 

These are all the points and inaccuracies in the book speci- 
fied in the review. So much for them, their merits, and the 
final" disposition of them on my part. 

Secondly. Let us now proceed to see how the issues stand 
on those made on the other side. In the reply two errors on 
his own part are set forth. 

1 . Mr. Curtis stated in the review that the revenue laws of 
the United States had been obstructed in the port of Charleston, 
South Carolina, by the nullification acts of that State in 1832. 

In my reply it was shown that these acts never went into 
operation at all, and could not have obstructed the revenue 
laws. The protective policy was agreed to be abandoned in 
Mr. Clay's Compromise Bill, which passed before these acts 
under their extension were to go into operation. South Caro- 
lina being satisfied with that abandonment, so agreed upon, 
these acts were repealed before they ever went into eftect. 

The rejoinder is silent upon this point. The conclusion to 
be drawn from this is, that Mr. Curtis admits that he committed 
an error himself in his attempt to show that I had committed 
one. 



128 THE EE VIEWERS EE VIE WED. 

2. Mr. Curtis made a statement in the review whicli implied 
tliat General Jackson approved the position of Mr. "Webster in 
his debate Avitli Mr. Calhoun that the Constitution was not a 
Compact between the States. 

In my reply it was shown by direct proof that General Jack- 
son did not give that part of Mr. Webster's speech any such ap- 
proval. 

In his rejoinder Mr. Curtis admits the proof oifered by me, 
showing that General Jackson did not approve that part of Mr. 
Webster's speech. This proof was the "authorized" explana- 
tion of certain parts of his proclamation by General Jackson 
himself, which appeared in the Washington Globe newspaper. 
But while he admits the correctness of the proof, he says that 
the " old hero " was persuaded by the conductors of that paper 
to let them put forth this explanation for certain electioneering 
purposes ; and that the explanation, upon the whole, was " the 
merest imiddle, from which no man can extract any intelligible 
theory of the nature of our constitutional system." 

Ifuddle or no muddle, as a whole, in presenting a " theory " 
of the nature of the government, it was certainly very clear and 
explicit on the point at issue between us. This, by the by, is 
the only point in all the issues between ns to which Mr. Curtis 
makes the slightest allusion in his so-called " rejoinder " ; and 
after thus disposing of this very pointed proof so offered, which 
showed he was wrong, he goes into a defence of his position, 
which amounts to about this : that if General Jackson did not 
approve that part of Mr. Webster's speech, other distinguished 
Democrats did — which could be shown by letters in his posses- 
sion which would fill a volume if he should publish them. He 
chooses, however, to publish but one of this character, and that 
one w\as from Mr. Madison. 

j^Tow, to all that is said on this point in the rejoinder, I have 
this to submit in answer: 1. If Mr. Madison, or ever so many 
other distinguished Democrats did approve that part of Mr. 
Webster's speech, it is no evidence that General Jackson did ; 
especially in the face of his explicit declaration that he did not, 
and can have no bearing whatever upon the point between us. 
2. Mr. Curtis was much more "unfortunate," I think, as a 



SUPw-REJOIKDER OF MR. STEPHENS. 129 

" logician " in citing this letter to Mr. Madison, to sustain him 
in his issue with me, than he supposed me to be " nnfoi-tunatc '' 
" as an historian " in citing Mr. Webster's Capon Swings 
speech in the book ; for this letter of Mr. Madison shows that 
even he did not concur with Mr. Webster on the main point in 
issue between him and Mr. Calhoun, and which was in issue 
between Mr. Cm'tis and myself in relation to the extent of Gen- 
eral Jackson's approval of the principles of Mr. AVebster's 
speech on that occasion. That point was as to the Constitution 
being a Compact between the States. On this point Mr. 
Madison's language in the very letter produced by Mr. Curtis 
is this : 

" It is fortunate when disputed theories can be decided by undisputed 
facts. And here the undisputed fact is that the Constitution was made 
by the people, lut as embodied in the several States who were parties to it, 
and, therefore, made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.'''' 

The italics are mine. This part of the letter so adduced by 
Mr. Curtis, therefore, shows clearly that whatever other mo- 
tives Mr. Madison may have had in thus congratulating Mr. 
Webster for his speech, so far as it related to the doctrine of 
Nullification, and its general tenor against Secession as a politic 
or practicable remedy for abuses of Federal power, he evi- 
dently intended to set him right on one point, and that was 
that the Constitution was not made by the whole people of 
the United States as embodied in one nation, as he had con- 
tended, bnt that it was " made hy tJie States in their highest 
authoritative cajyacity ! " That is, in then- sovereign capacity, 
and, being so made by them, was of necessity a Compact be- 
tween them ! 

This is the clear import of this language of Mr. Madison, in 
which he meant nothing more than to reafiirm the principles of 
his own celebrated resolutions in tlie Virginia Legislature in 
1798, and his report on them in 1Y99. It is true, Mr. Madison 
was opposed to the doctrine of Nullification, as, perhaps, three- 
fourths of the Democratic party in the United States were. He 
w^as also opposed to Secession as a proper or practicable remedy 
against the abuses of Federal power in the matter of the 

9 



130 THE EEVEEWERS EEYIEWED. 



I 



protective policy, as were a large majority of even Soutliemi 
Democrats. 

Mr. Webster's speech, so far as it related to these questions 
and in iJiis view of them, was approved by this entire class, of l 
Democrats, North and South ; but neither Mr. Madison, nori 
any other distinguished Democrat anywhere, from Gen. Jacksoni 
and Mr. Livingston, who wrote his proclamation, down to the < 
lowest on the list, ever approved in terms, I venture to say, that . 
part of the speech which denied that the Constitution was as- 
Compact between the States. If Mr. Curtis can produce one <! 
letter out of the mass he has from men of his class which does 
so expressly endorse that part of Mr. Webster's speech, he is ;, 
respectfully ashed to do so. The one which he selected from all ij 
the rest for this pui-pose, certainly does not. Mr. Madison, in '■ 
this congratulatory letter, delighted with certain portions of Mr. 
Webster's speech, and the high tone of patriotism which 
breathed through the whole of it, seems, in the spontaneous ex- 
pression of his admiration of those portions which pleased him 
so much, to have acted, in not permitting even this occasion to 
pass without inculcating an important truth, in a polite way, 
upon the very wise maxim of Pope : 



" Blunt truths more mischief than nice falsehoods do : 
Men must be taught as if you taught them not, 
And things unknown proposed as things forgot." 



I 



Whatever Mr. Curtis may think of it, I very much question 
if Mr. Webster did not see and feel the point and force of this 
language of Mr. Madison, so courteously and urbanely ex- 
pressed. He must have seen and must have felt that, while 
this great statesman was highly gratified with the speech, as a 
whole ; yet, upon the main point at issue between him and Mr. 
Calhoun, his distinguished correspondent differed toto codo with 
him. 

So much, therefore, upon this point, the only one of the 
former issues between Mr. Curtis and myself to which he has 
alluded in his rejoinder. I have gone through with all of them. 
1 our readers will see clearly just how the controversy upon all 
of them stands at present. Here I take my leave of them, and 



SUR-REJOIN"I>ER OF MR. STEPIIENS. 131 

am perfectly willing to let them rest just where and as they 
stand, if Mr. Curtis is, 

I now propose to take S(yme notice of his new matter. In 
doing this, I premise, by saying to Mr. Curtis and to your 
readers that the questions which are involved in arriving at a 
correct knowledge of the nature of the Government of the 
United States are not speculative questions growing out of theo- 
ries of any sort. They are questions of fact, as Mr. Madison 
says in his letter to Mr. "Webster — questions of undisputable 
facts, to be settled by evidence of the highest order. This evi- 
dence is to be found in the records and the documentary history 
of the country, against which no speculations or theories can 
have any weight with those whose sole object is the investigation 
of truth. The proper solution of all these questions requires no 
resort to tlie subtleties of metaphysics in any way. They are 
clear and plain, when properly presented, to the commonest 
understanding — even to " the wa^^aring man, though he be a 
fool." They are only mystified when men, by resorting to 
speculations, make a '■^muddle'''' of their theories upon them. 
These are the questions which are discussed in other parts of 
the book, which Mr. Curtis did not undertake to review ; and 
the indisputable facts which must decide them, according to the 
inexorable principles of logic in the forum of reason, are therein 
fully produced and regularly presented. These facts, thus ar- 
rayed and set forth, establish the conclusion, beyond the power 
of successful assault, that the Government of the United States 
is a Government of States, made by States and for States — a 
Federal Ivcpublic in every sense of the term, or " a Confeder- 
ated Republic," as "Washington styled it, which means the same 
thing. It is, in other words, just such a union of States as Yat- 
tel described in the quotation cited in the reply. This the tacts 
of our history show. 

It is further maintained in the book, as a sound and indis- 
putable principle, that where States are thus united, when one 
or more of them palpably and intentionally violate any of the 
tenus or articles of their union, or fail to fulfil their obligations 
according to those tenus, the others are thereby absolved from 
their obligations under the Compact, and have a perfect right to 



132 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

withdraw from a Union so formed — if, in so doing, tliej do their 
former associates no other injury than that which results from 
the loss to them of the advantages which the Union secured to 
them ; and they have this perfect right so to withdi-aw without 
any rightful or just power or authority on the part of their 
former confederates to prevent their withdrawal. 

It is also maintained in the book, as an unquestionable fact 
in our history, that one of the articles of our Union was openly 
and avowedly broken by several of the Northern States. The 
article or clause in the Constitution so violated was one " with- 
out which," as declared by Judge Story from the bench of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, " the Union never would 
have been formed." 

Upon these points of our history and indisputable principles 
of public law, of reason, of right, and of justice, and not upon 
any " muddled " theory of any sort, it is maintained in the book 
that the war which was inaugurated and waged by the Northern 
States against the Southern States to prevent their withdrawal 
from the Union, after their own open and palpable violation 
of their Constitutional obligations, was utterly ^vithout rightful 
authority, either by the Constitution or the laws of nations ; 
that it was nothing short of a gross and wanton aggression 
against unoffending neighboring States ; founcled entirely upon 
usurpation, and in direct violation of the fundamental principles 
upon which American independence was declared and achieved. 
— That independence was not a national independence of the 
people of all the Colonies united in one nation, as speculative 
writers by '''"muddled'''' theories have attempted to represent it 
to be ; but it was the independence of the States severally and 
separately. The principle upon which it rested, was the Sover- 
eign Right of Local Self-Goverament in the people of each 
Colony or State. The moving cause to it was the assault made 
by the British Parliament upon the chartered rights of Massa- 
chusetts. It was against this that the " cry " was raised in Yir- 
ginia, and rang in shouts from the St. Croix to the Alatamaha, 
from the seaboard to the Alleghanies : " The cause of Boston is 
the cause of us all ! " The cause of Boston then was the Sover- 
eign Right of Local Self-Go vernment. This was the cause which 



SUE-KEJOINDER OF MR. STEPHENS. 133 

triumphed bj the joint action of all the States in the achieve- 
ment of their separate sovereignty and independence. 

Mr. Curtis, in liis rambling through the mazes of the new 
matter introduced in his " rejoinder," is pleased to say : 

" ' If the Constitution was a Compact between Sovereign States,' the 
Compact was broken by the secession of the Southern States ; and it was 
perfectly legitimate for Congress to make war upon the States themselves, 
to conquer them as sovereign parties to a war, and, having conquered 
them, to suppress their governments, and to mould them just as it would 
mould a foreign territory conquered by arms or acquired by treaty." 

Further on in the same strain he says : 

" I confess, Mr. Editor, when I see or hear persons who are accounted 
Democrats maintaining State Rights upon the Calhoun theory of our sys- 
tem, I can only wish they would point out to me U])on what jsossible 
ground of public law or political science they can complain of what has 
been done by Congress to the South." 

Now, in reply to this, you will allow me to say to Mr. Curtis, 
that I will promptly undertake to comply with his wish in this 
respect. This I do, however, not as one accounted a Democrat 
" upon the Calhoun theory of our system," but as one who pre- 
sumes to know something of the established principles of " pub- 
lic law " as announced by those to whom we are indebted for all 
we have of what may be called " political science." 

The book referred to shows that he need not have qualilied 
his first sentence quoted above with an " if." That " if" is for- 
ever disposed of, unless the argument in the book is shown to 
be erroneous. This neither he nor anybody else has as yet at- 
tempted to do, so far as I know. The Constitution is a Com- 
pact between Sovereign States, and from this very fact the 
enormity of the wrongs and outrages which have been com- 
mitted by Congress upon the South do but the more distinctly 
and glaringly appear ! This contract was not broken, however 
by the Secession of the Southern States, as Mr. Cm'tis so flip- 
pantly assumes. I cannot permit myself to believe that he 
would, upon cool reflection, venture to stake his reputation upon 
the denial of the correctness of the position of the book, that it 
was first intentionally and avowedly violated by several of the 
Northern States. No one knows better than Mr. Curtis, how 



134 THE EE VIEWERS EEVIEWED. 

devoted I was to the Union of the States under tlie Constitution, 
and how he and I hibored together in the fall of 18G0 to get the 
" offending States " to return to the discharge of their obligations 
under it, that the Union might be preserved. He knows how 
utterly ojiposed I was to Secession as a remedy for even this 
breach of faith by the Northern members of the Union ; not a 
whit less so than Mr. Madison was to the like remedy for the 
wi'ongs and oppressions of the Protective policy. He knows 
equally well, too, that I then held as I now do, whether he did 
or not, that the " aggrieved States " w^ould be perfectly justified, 
upon the principles of public law and natural justice, in a resort 
to this remedy in consequence of this continued breach of the 
Compact, if they, in their sovereign capacity, should so decide 
to do ; just as I doubt not Mr. Madison would have held in the 
case of the Protective policy if the abandonment of the principle 
upon which it was based had not been agreed upon, as it was, 
and if in consequence of its continuance this " ultima ratio " 
had been resorted to by the States whose vital interests were 
supposed to be affected by it, even though it had been done 
against his judgment as to its expediency. He knows full well 
that Secession was no favorite remedy with me for evils of any 
sort under the Union. He knows also that, notwithstanding 
all the efforts that were made everywhere, the " offending 
States " would not, and did not right themselves in the matter 
wherein they were so grossly derelict. And whether he will, 
or will not, now seriously deny that that Constitution was thus 
openly and avowedly violated by several of the Northern States, 
cannot affect the great fact in our history that it was. This 
will forever remain one of the imjDerishable truths in the annals 
of this country. 

The Compact was first broken by more than half of the very 
States which projected and waged this war professedly with no 
object l)ut to make their confederates, stand to their part of the 
bargain, while they most notoriously, if not shamefully, rej)udi- 
ated their own obligations under it ! 

Was not this a great wrong to the Seceding States, as well 
as a huge crime against humanity \ Does the history of the 
world present a parallel of insolent and arrogant iniquity ? The 



SUE-EEJOINDER OF MR. STEPHENS. 135 

use of power by wliicli this most monstrous outrage upon riglit 
and justice was perpetrated resulted in no way from the Compact 
view of the Constitution. It sprang from, and was chiimed 
from, that " muddled " theory which assumed that the States, 
by the adoption of the Constitution, had alienated a portion of 
their sovereignty beyond their power of a rightful resumption 
of it, and that that portion retained must yield to the portion 
surrendered. This theoretic claim of power, in violation of the 
fundamental principles of the whole structure of the Govern- 
ment, was the prime and leading cause of the war. To this is 
to be attributed all the enormities of its inception, prosecution, 
and present results. Moreover, the Compact view of the Con- 
stitution did not originate with Mr. Calhoun, or Democrats of 
his fiiith, respecting State Kights. It originated with the 
•framers of the Constitution itself, and was not denied by any 
man of note for forty years of our histoiy. It was the view of 
Hamilton, Ames, Ellsworth, Sherman, Madison, Jefferson, and 
"Washington, to say nothing of others. It was because he 
thought this construction, which has in later times been put 
upon it through the subtleties of a " muddled " theory, would 
be put upon it, that Patrick Henry opposed its ratification. 
But it was denied by the friends and advocates of the Constitu- 
tion, in every State Convention where the question was raised, 
that this construction could possibly be put upon it, in the face 
of the notorious facts attending its formation. To cpiiet appre- 
hensions, however, the Tenth Amendment was very soon unani- 
mously adopted by the States, to settle that question forever. 

The great truths relating to the nature and character of our 
Federal Republic, peculiar in many respects as it is, were dis- 
tinctly set forth by Mr. Jefferson in his Kentuclcy Resolutions 
of 1708, long before the days of Mr. Calhoun. They arc based 
upon the fact, that the Constitution is a Compact between Sov- 
ereign States. These Resolutions constituted the creed of the 
Democratic party of that day, and of the only true Democratic 

! party or Constitutional party which has ever existed in this 
country since, or ever will hereafter. Under the administration 

I of the Government according to the principles of these Resolu- 
tions, for sixty years, no country in the world ever was more 



136 THE EEVIEWERS EEVIEWED. 

happy, peaceful, and prosperous tlian ours was ; and I take tliis 
occasion to say to Mr. Curtis tliat neither he nor anybody else 
may ever expect, or even hope for, a restoration of those days 
of peace, quiet, and happiness, with real Constitutional Liberty, 
until the administration of the Federal government is brought 
back to these principles : not by force, not by arms, but by the 
expulsion from power of those who have committed these mon- 
strous usurpations. This expulsion is to be by the people at 
the ballot-box ! In this way to-day, if they were wise, the 
" cry " would go forth throughout the entire ISTorth : " The cause 
of Virginia is the cause of us all ? " For they may depend upon 
it that what is now being enacted in that old and renowned 
Commonwealth, as well as in other Southern States, will sooner 
or later be enacted in their own States, if that theory and claim 
of power under it, from which all these outrages legitimately 
spring, is not entirely and speedily abandoned. It is utterly 
inconsistent with that Sovereign Right of Local Self-Govern- 
ment on the part of tha several States of this Union upon which 
our entire system of American free institutions is based, and 
upon which alone these institutions can be maintained and 

perpetuated. 

Alexander II. Stephens. 



AETICLE lY. 

MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO UOK HORACE GREELEY'S 
-CRITICISM OJSr THE WORK. 

Liberty Hall, | 

Cba-wfordville, Ga., Augustan, 1869. \ 

Messrs. Editors of the Constitutionalist^ Augusta, Ga. : 

Will you please allow me the use of your columns to reply 
to an article in a late number of the New York Tribune, writ- 
ten by the Hon. Horace Greeley, and which requires some no- 
tice from me. 

In this article, Mr. Greeley, after alluding to my work upon 
the "AVar between the States," and late letters in reply to 
Judge Nicholas upon the same subject, goes on to say : 

" Mr. Stephens' theory is, tliat the Union was a mere league of Sov- 
ereign Powers ; and, of course, dissoluble at the pleasure of those Powers 
respectively — of a minority, or, in fact, of any one of them, so l\ir as that 
one is concerned. And he quotes sundry conspicuous Republicans — 
among them, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin F. Wade, and Horace Greeley 
— as having, at some time, favored this view. 

" Mr. Stephens is utterly mistaken. Leaving others to speak for them- 
selves, we can assure him that Horace Greeley never, at any moment of 
his life, imagined that a single State, or a dozen of States, could right- 
fully dissolve the Union. The doctrine of Horace Greeley, which Mr. 
Stephens has confounded with State Sovereignty, is that oi Popular Sov- 
ereignty, or the right oizi people to recast or modify their political ii:sti- 
tutions and relations — the right set forth by Thomas Jefferson in the 
Declaration of American Independence, as follows : 

" ' We hold these truths to be self-evident ; that all men are created 
equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the j^ursuit of happiness ; 
that, to secure these rights. Governments are instituted among men, de- 
riving their just powers from the consent of the governed; tliat, when- 
ever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the 



138 THE EEVIEWEES REVIEWED. 

right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Govern- 
ment, laying its foundation on such principles, and oi-ganizing its powers 
in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and 
happiness.' 

" This doctrine of JeflFerson's we have ever received ; and we have held 
it precisely as it reads. The same is true, we presume, of Messrs. Lincoln, 
Wade, and other Eepublicans. Mr. Stephens may say it justifies the so- 
called Secession of the South ; we think differently. We hold that Seces- 
sion was the work of a violent, subversive, bullying, terrorizing minority, 
overawing and stifling the voice of a decided majority of the Southern 
people. The facts which justify this conclusion are embodied in The 
American Conflict^ more especially in vol. i., chap. xxii. According to Mr. 
Stephens' conception, a majority of the peojile of Delaware, consisting 
of less than 100,000 persons, might lawfully dissolve the Union; but 
the whole population of New York -south- of the Highlands — at least 
1,500,000 in number — could do nothing of the kind. Mr. Stephens' may 
possibly be the true doctrine, but it certainly never was ours, nor of any 
Republican so far as we know. The right we affirm is not based on the 
Federal Constitution, but is before and above any and all Constitutions." 

I quote him in full on the points to be commented on, that 
your readers and the public may thoroughly understand them, 
and be able .to judge fairly and justly between us, and come to 
a correct conclusion as to whether I or he was or is mistaken in 
the premises. 

Now what is affirmed by me in the first volume of the 
" Constitutional Yiew of the Late War between the States," 
and what Mr. Greeley, with other Republicans, is quoted there- 
in to sustain, is this : 

"Men of great ability of our own day — men who stand high in the 
Republican ranks at this time, who had and have no sympathy with the 
late Southern movement, are fully committed to the rightfulness of that 
movement. Mr. Lincoln himself was fully committed to it. Besides 
him, I refer you to but two others of this class, now prominent actors 
in public affairs. They are Senator Wade, of Ohio, at this tima Vice- 
President of the United States, and Mr. Greeley, of the New York 
Tribune^ who is ' a power behind the throne greater than the throne 
itself.' " 

Then after quoting Senator Wade, with comments on his 
utterances, I go on to quote from the New York Tribune^ of 
the 9th of November, 1860, an article which is acknowledged 
by Mr. Greeley to be his, and published in his history of the 
war, the " American Conflict," page 350, vol. i., as follows : 



MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. GREELEY. 139 

" The telegrapli informs us that most of the Cotton States are medita- 
ting a withdrawal from the Union, because of Lincoln's election. Very 
well : they have a right to meditate, and meditation is a profitable em- 
ployment of leisure. "We have a chronic, invincible disbelief in Disunion 
as a remedy for either Northern or Southern grievances. We cannot 
see any necessary connection between the alleged disease and this ultra- 
heroic remedy ; still, we say, if any one sees fit to meditate Disunion, 
let him do so unmolested. That was a base and hypocritic row that was 
once raised at Southern dictation, about the ears of John Quincy Adams, 
because he presented a petition for the dissolution of the Union. The 
petitioner had a right to make the request ; it vras the Member's duty to 
present it. And now, if the Cotton States consider the value of the 
Union debatable, we maintain their perfect right to discuss it. Nay : we 
hold with Jefierson, to the inalienable right of Communities to alter or 
abolish forms of Government that have become oppressive or injurious ; 
and, if the Cotton States shall decide that they can do better out of the Union 
than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may he 
a revolutionary one, hut it exists nevertheless ; and we do not see how one 
party can have a right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We 
must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union, and 
nullify or defy the laws thereof; to withdraw from the Union is quite 
another matter. And, whenever a considerable section of our Union shall 
deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures de- 
signed to keep it in. "We hope never to live in a Republic, whereof one 
section is pinned to the residue by bayonets. 

" But, while we thus uphold the practical Wberty, if not the abstract 
right of Secession, we must insist that the step be taken, if it ever shall 
be, with the deliberation and gravity befitting so momentoua an issue. 
Let ample time be given for reflection ; let the subject be fally canvassed 
before the people ; and let a popular vote "be taken in every case, before 
Secession is decreed. Let the people be told just why they are asked to 
break up the Confederation ; let them have both sides of the question 
fully presented ; let them reflect, deliberate, then vote ; and let the act 
of Secession be the echo of an unmistakable popular fiat. A judgment 
thus rendered, a demand for Separation so backed, would either be ac- 
quiesced in without the efi"usion of blood, or those who rushed upon car- 
nage to defy and defeat it, would place themselves clearly in the wrong." 

I give above, this quotation in full, as I did m the book 
referred to, that no injustice may be done to him by partial 
extracts. 

"What I quoted him to sustain, was, as clearly appears, the 
rightfulness of Secession in itself, and no particular tlieory of 
mine touching the principles upon which it was based. Does 



140 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

not the article from liis own pcaper and book, above spread be- 
fore your readers, fully sustain my affirmation for wliicli the 
quotation was made ? Was I " utterly mistaken f " Or did I in 
any way confound State Sovereignty with Popular Sovereign- 
ty ? Wliat difference Mr. Greeley sees between State Sover- 
eignty and Popular Sovereignty I know not. By State Sover- 
eignty I understand the sovereignty of the people composing a 
State in an organized political body. But what I affirmed, and 
quoted him to sustain, rested ujDon no distinction between these 
phrases. It was simply as to the rightfulness of the act in it- 
self, on the part of the people of a State, without reference to 
the source of the right. My comments on this question in the 
book, page 518, are as follows. I give them in full also, that it 
may be clearly seen that no injustice was done to him : 

" What better argument could I make to show the rightfulness of 
Secession, if the Southern States, of their own good will and pleasure, 
chose to resort to it, even for no other cause than Mr. Lincoln's election, 
than is herein set forth in his own pointed, strong, and unmistakable 
language ? It is true, he waives all questions of Compact between the 
States. He goes deeper into fundamental principles, and plants the right 
upon the eternal truths announced in the Declaration of Independence. 
That is bringing up principles, which I have not discussed, not because I 
do not endorse them as sound and correct, to the word and letter, but be- 
cause it was not necessary for my purpose. Upon these immutable prin- 
ciples, the justifiableness of Georgia in her Secession Ordinance of the 19th 
of Januarj', 18G1, will stand clearly established for all time to come. For 
if, with less than one hundred thousand population, she was such a people 
in 1776 as had the unquestionable right to alter and change their form of 
Government as they pleased, how much more were they such a jieople, 
with more than ten times the number in 1861 ? The same principle ap- 
plies to all the States which quit the old and joined the new Confeder- 
ation. Mr. Greeley here speaks of the Union as a Confederation and not a 
Nation. This was, perhaps, the vnconsdous utterance of a (/rcat truth 
when the true spirit was moving him. 

" The Staie of Georgia did not take this step, however, in withdraw- 
ing from the Confederation, withoi^t the most thorough discussion. It 
18 true it was not a disjiassionate discussion. Men seldom, if ever, enter 
into such discussions with perfect calmness, or even that degree of calm- 
ness with which all such subjects ought to be considered. But the sub- 
ject was fully canvassed before the people. Both sides were strongly pre- 
sented. In the very earnest remonstrance against this measure made by 



• MK. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. GREELEY. 141 

inc, on the 14tli of November, 18G0, to which you have alluded, was an 
appeal equally earnest for just such a vote as he suggests, in order that 
the action of the State on the subject might be 'the echo of an unmistak- 
able pojiular fiat.' On the same occasion I did say, in substance, just 
what he had so aptly said before, that the people of Geogia, in their Sov- 
ereign capacity, had the right to secede if they chose to do so, and that 
in this event of their so determining to do, upon a mature consideration 
of the question, that I should bow in submission to the majesty of their 
will so expressed ! 

"This, when so said by me, is what it seems was ' the dead fly in the 
ointment' of that speech, so sadly 'marring its general perfume.' This 
was ' the distinct avowal of the right of the State to overrule my personal 
convictions and plunge me,' as he says, ' into treason to the Nation.' 

" Was not the same ' dead fly in the ointment ' of his article of the 9th 
of November, only five days before ? And if going with my State in 
what he declared she had a perfect right to do, plunged me into treason 
to the Nation, is he not clearly an accessory before the fact, by a rule of 
construction not more strained than that laid down in the trial of State 
cases by many judges not quite so notoriously infamous as Jefireys ? By 
a rule not more strained than that which would make out treason in the 
act itself! But I do not admit the rule in its application either to the ac- 
cessory or the principal." 

So much for the allegation that /was utterly mistaken ! 

JS^ow let me tm'n upon Mr. Greeley and ask, how it is with 
him in the premises ? "Was fie not " utterly niistahen " when 
he said so vauntingly for himself in the article now under re- 
view, " Horace Greeley never at any moment of his life imagined 
that a single State or a dozen of States could rightly dissolve the 
Union ! " 

Did he not expressly say, on the 9th of November, 18G0, 
through the columns of the Trihune, that " if the Cotton States 
shall decide that they can do hetter out of the Union than in it, 
we insist on letting them go in peace. Tlie right to secede may 
he a revolutionary one, hut it exists nevertlieless ', and we do not 
sec how one party can have a right to do what another party 
has a right to prevent. "VVe must ever resist the asserted right 
of any State to remain in the Union, and nullify or defy the 
laws thereof; to withdraw from tJie Union is quite another 
matter ! " 

But, besides what I quoted him as saying, did he not, on the 



142 THE REVIEWEES REVIEWED. 

ITtli clay of December, 1860, three days before tbe Secession of 
South Carolina, in the Tribune, assert : 

" If it " (the Declaration of Independence) ^^ justified the Secession from 
tJie British Empire of three millions of colonists in 1776, ice do not see why 
it would not justify the Secession office millions of Southrons from the Fed- 
eral Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this pointy why does not some one 
attempt to show wherein and ichy f " 

Again : Did lie not in the Tribune, on the 23d day of Feb- 
ruary, 1861, five days after the inauguration of President Davis, 
at Montgomery, use this language : 

" We have repeatedly said, and tee once more insist, that the great principle 
embodied ly Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that 
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, is 
sound and just ; and that if the Slave States, the Cotton States, or the Gulf 
States only, choose to form an Independent Nation, they have a cleak 

MORAIi RIGHT TO DO SO." 

These quotations from the Tribune I see set forth by ex- 
President Buchanan in his work entitled " Buchanan's Ad- 
ministration," page 97. I take it for granted they are correct. 
Then how, in the face of all these proofs, can the Tribune now 
say, that " Horace Greeley never, at any moment of his life, imag- 
ined that a single State, or a dozen States, could rightfully dis- 
solve the TJnionP 

Is not this a full and explicit acknowledgment of the right 
of a State to loithdraw or secede ? Did the Southern States ever 
attempt to dissolve the Union in any other way than by ])eace- 
ably seceding or withdrawing from it f Mr. Greeley knows, and 
the M^orld knows, that they did not. 

One other remark upon this editorial now under considera- 
tion. In it Mr, Greeley says : 

" According to Mr. Stephens' conception, a majority of tlie people of 
Delaware, consisting of less than 100,000 persons, might lawfully dissolve 
the Union, but the whole population of New York, south of the High- 
lands — at least 1,500,000 in number — could do nothing of the kind. Mr. 
Stephens' may jjossibly be the true doctrine, but it certainly never was 
ours, nor of any Republican, so far as we know. The right, we affirm, is 
not based on the Federal Constitution, but is before and above any and 
all Constitutions." 



MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO MR. GREELEY. I.13 

Just so, let it be said to Mr. Grcclcy, ^vitll the doctrine 
advanced by me in the book referred to ! It is not based on 
the Federal Constitution, but upon the authority that made that 
Compact. It is based upon principles existing "before and 
above any and all Constitutions." It is based upon the Para- 
mount Authority (call it Popular Sovereignty or State Sover- 
eignty, or by any other name) by which all organized States or 
Peoples can rightfully make or un7)ia7ce State or Federal Consti- 
tutions at their pleasure ; subject only to the great moral law, 
which regulates and governs the actions and conduct of nations ! 

My conception, however, involves no such nonsense as that 
exhibited in his statement of it, touching the relative popula- 
tions of the whole State of Delaware, and a portion only (being 
a large minority, however,) of the population of the State of 
New York. Populations in this respect must be looked to, and 
considered in their organized character. The doctrine advo- 
cated by me with all its corollaries rests upon \\\Q,fact that Dela- 
ware, however small her population, is a perfectly organized 
State — is a Sovereign State — and as sucli is an integral Mem- 
ber of our Federal Republic, and that New York with her ever 
so many more people is no more. The doctrine is that ours is 
indeed a Federal Republic — constituted, not of one jyeople in 
mass, as a single Republic is, but composed of a number of 
sci")arate Republics. 

In this Federal Republic, the little Republic of Delaware by 
the Constitution of the United States, which sets forth the terms 
of the Compact between these several Republics composing the 
Union, has just as iniieh 2:)oliiical po2i'er in the enactment of all 
Federal laws, as the great Republic of ISTew York has, without 
any regard to their relative, resj^ective populations. In the 
Congress of States, which is provided for by the Constitution to 
take charge of all Federal matters entrusted to its control, Dela- 
ware, to-day, with her little over one hundred thousand popula- 
tion, stands perfectly equal in ])olitical power to New York vnth 
her nearly forty thnes that number ! Congress under our system 
means the same now it ever meant. It means the meeting or 
assemblage of the States composing the Union by their ac- 
credited Representatives in Grand Council. In this Grand 



144 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

Council, or Congress of States, Delaware has as niucli political 
power as New York. It is true in one House of this Congress, 
her one member has but little showing against the thirty odd 
members of New York. But her eqimllty of power is maintained 
in the other. Here this perfect equality of political power 
between all the States is as distinctly retained under the second 
Articles of Union as it w^as under the first. ISTo law can be 
passed by the Congress, if a majority of the States, through their 
" Ambassadors " in the Senate, object. 

It is on this principle, that the six New England States with 
a fraction over three millions of population, under the census of 
18G0, have in the last resort in the Council Chambers of the 
Congress, six times as much power in determining all questions 
before them, as the State of New York, though New York 
alone has a population of over half a million more than all these 
other States together ! It is upon this principle Aliat these six 
States have as much power in the administration of the Govern- 
ment as the six States of New York, Pennsylvania, Yirginia, 
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois had with their aggregate population 
of thirteen and a half millions in 1860 ! 

These are facts which neither Mr. Greeley nor anybody else 
can successfully controvert. 

Ours, therefore, being a Federal Government, is and must be, 
as all other Federal Governments are, " a Government of States, 
and for States," with limited j)owers directed to specific objects ; 
and not a Government in any sense or mew for the masses of 
the people of the respective States in their internal and muni- 
cipal afiairs. This great Sovereign Power of Local Self-Govern- 
ment, for which Independence was declared and achieved, 
resides with the people of the respective States. 

A ready and sufficient answer to Mr. Greeley's distorted 
"conception" about the political power of the comparative 
populations of Delaware and New York, may be given to him 
from his own doctrines. It is this : If a majority of the people 
of Delaware, after due deliberation and full consideration, have 
the same right, whether by virtue of State Sovereignty or Popu- 
lar Sovereignty, to withdraw from the Union which they had to 
declare their Independence of Great Britain, which he admits 



I 



MR. STEniENS' REPLY TO MR. GREELEY. I4.5 

they have, it does not therefore follow that less than half the 
population of the State of New York can, lolth equal right, carry 
that State out, against the will of the onajority, though the 
rainority in New York wishing to do so ho, five hundred w five 
thousand times greater in number than the majority in Dela- 
ware ! He may, therefore, not he alarmed at any of the legiti- 
mate consequences of his own doctrines ! 

What he says about Secession having been carried in the 
Southern States by " a violent, subversive, bullying, terrorizing, 
minority, overawing and stifling " a majority of the people of 
these States, is nothing but bald and naked assertion, which 
cannot be maintained against the facts of history. The question 
was as thoroughly discussed as any ever was before the people. 
Conventions were regularly called by the duly constituted 
authorities of the States, and members duly elected thereto, 
according to law in all the States, which seceded before Mr. 
Lincoln's Proclamation of War. These elections were as orderly 
as elections usually are in any of the States on great occasions. 
In these Conventions, Ordinances of Secession were passed by 
decided majorities ! It is true that a large minority in all these 
Conventions, save one, and in all these States, were opposed to 
Secession as a question of policy ; very few in any of them 
questioned the Right, or doubted their Duty to go with the 
majority. But after Mr. Lincoln's Proclamation of War — after 
his illegal and unconstitutional call for troops — after his sus- 
pension of the Writ of Habeas Corjms, no j^eojyle on earth loere 
ever more unanimous in any cause than were the people of the 
Southern States, in defence of what they deemed the great 
essential principles of American Free Institutions ! There was 
not one in ten thousand of the people, in at least ten of the 
Southern States, whose heart and soul were not thoroughly en- 
listed in the cause ! Nor did any people on earth ever make 
greater or more heroic sacrifices for its success, during four long 
years of devastation, blood, and carnage ! 

A majority of the people overawed and terrorized by a 
minority ! Indeed! 

If so, what became of this majority when the Confederate 
Armies, which stood between them and their deliverers, were 
10 



146 THE EEVIEWEES REVIEWED. 

overpowered? -Wliere is this majority now, even witli the 
sweeping disfranchisement which silences so many of the over- 
awing tyrants ? Why has it not been permitted to exercise the 
inalienahle Right of Self-Go vernment, even with the reinforce- 
ment of the enfranchised blacks ? Why are so many of these 
States, till this day, held imder military rule, with their whole 
populations " pinned " to very had Government by Federal bay- 
onets, under \\\q ])retext of their continued " disloyalty ? " This 
assertion, as to the state of things in the beginning, is as utterly 
groundless in fact, as it is utterly inconsistent with the gratui- 
tous assumptions on wdiich the ^re^Qwi pretext is based ! 

Is it not amazing, Messrs. Editors, that Mr. Greeley in the 
face of the facts for the last four years, to say nothing of those 
of the "war, when, according to his own showing, the Adminis- 
tration at AVashington in rushing into it, were in " the wrong " 
— I say, to omit all mention of the wrongs of the war, its 
immense sacrifices of blood and treasure, is it not amazing in 
the highest degree, that Mr. Greeley, in the face of the facts of 
the last four years only, should now repeat to us the Principles 
of American Independence as his creed ? Have not the Consti- 
tutions of ten States, as made and adopted by the people 
thereof, " founded on such principles and organized in such form 
as seemed to them most likely to efiect their safety and happi- 
ness," been swept from existence by military edict ? Have not 
the people in these ten States, including the arbitrarily enfran- 
chised Slacks, been denied the right to form new Constitutions, 
laying their foundations on such principles and organizing its 
powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect 
their safety and happiness ? Have they not been required, and 
literally compelled, to form such Constitutions as seemed most 
likely to effect the safety and security of the dominant fjiction 
at Washington ? 

Is this holding up to our gaze these immutable and ever-to- 
be-reverenced Principles of the Declaration of Independence, at 
tills time and under the present circumstances, intended only as 
mocTcery added to insult, injury, and outrage ? 
Yours, most respectfully, 

Alexander H. Stephens. 



AETICLE Y. 

THE SUBJECT OF THE ELECTION OF MR. DAVIS TO THE 
FRESIDENCY OF TEE CONFEDERATE STATES. 

I. — Letter of Hon. Alexander M. Clayton, of Mississippi, 
CRiTicisiNO Mr. Stephens' Statement concerning, n. 

Wood Cote, Miss., June 17, 1870. 

Editors Apj^eul : — The weekly Louisville Courier- Journaly 
of the 17th inst., contains an extract from the second volume 
of Mr. Stephens' History of the War, which calls for some com- 
ment. The passage alluded to is in these words : 

" Toombs was to have been clioscn President, but failed through a 
singular misapprehension on the part of representatives from other States, 
who had understood that he had refused to have his name put forward. 
There was some misunderstanding, likewise, concerning Howell Cobb 
being the choice of Georgia. By accidental complications, Mississippi had 
the first choice, and chose Jefferson Davis, leaving Georgia the second, 
which resulted in the Vice-Presidency of ^Ir. Stephens." 

There is great error in this statement, unintentional no 
doubt, and induced to some extent by the modesty of Mr. 
Stephens, which makes him unwilling to give that prominence 
to himself, which really belongs to him. 

I was at that time a member of the Provisional Congress 
from Mississippi. Believing that Mr. Davis was the choice of 
the South for the position of President, before repairing to 
Montgomery, I addressed him a letter to ascertain if he would 
accept it. He replied that it was not the place he desired ; that 
if he could have his choice, he would greatly prefer to be in 
active service as Commander-in-chief of the Army ; but that he 



-^^g THE EEVIEWERS EEVIEWED. 

would give himself to the cause in any capacity whatever. That 
was the only letter of which I have any knowledge, that he 
wrote on the subject, and that was shown only to a very lew 
persons, and only when I was ashed if Mr. Davis would accept 

the Presidency. 

I intend no injustice or disrespect to any ot the gentle- 
men named, but I am sui-e Mr. Stephens was himself the first 
choice of Georgia. There was no electioneermg, no manage- 
ment on the part of any one, each voter was left to determme 
for himself in whose hands the destinies of the infant Conted- 
eracy should be placed. By a law as fixed as gravitation itself, 
and as little disturbed by outside infiuences, the mmds of mem- 
bers centered upon Mr. Davis. , 
After a few days of anxious and intense labor, the Provi- 
sional Constitution was framed and it became necessary to give 
it vitality by putting some one at head of the new Government. 
Then Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, approached me and said that 
it had been the wish of that State to make Mr. Stephens Presi- 
dent- but he (Crawford) had become satisfied that it was the 
wish of all the other States, that Mr. Davis should be assigned 
to that position. He then asked me if Mr. Stephens would be 
acceptable to the Mississippi delegation as Vice-President, i 
replied, that I believed he would be their choice. Without any 
efibrt on the part of the friends of either, the election was made 
without the shghtest dissent. Of the accidental complications 
referred to, I have not the least knowledge ; and always thought 
that the election of Mr. Davis arose from the spontaneous con- 
viction of his peculiar fitness. I have consulted no one on the 
subject, and have appended my name, only to avoid resting an 
important fact upon anonymous authority. ^ 
Very respectfully, yours, 

Alex. M. Clayton. 



MR. STEPHENS' STATEMENT. I49 



II. — Reply of Mk. Stephens, with his Statement upon the 

Subject. 

LiDERTY Hall, ) 

Crawfordtille, Ga., June 25, ISVO. J 

To the Editors of the Mem/phis Appeal : 

Gentlemen : — I have just seen a copy of your paper of the 
21st, in which is published a letter from Hon. Alexander M. 
Clayton, of Mississippi, that is very properly entitled to some 
notice from me. 

In this letter Judge Clayton quotes from the Louisville 
Courier Journal what purports, as he quotes it, to be an " ex- 
tract " from the second volume of my work upon the war upon 
the subject of the election of Mr. Davis to the Presidency of the 
Southern Confederacy, and after giving the " extract " j)roceed8 
to say : " There is great error in this statement, unintentional 
no doubt," etc. 

Now I have not seen a copy of the issue of the Courier- 
Journal to which he refers ; but I wish to say to you, and to 
your readers, as I have written to Judge Clayton, that there 
are no such words used by me in the book alluded to, as those 
said to be an " extract " from it. All who wish to know exactly 
what I said upon this subject, as well as all others treated of, 
had better consult the book itself than rely upon any other 
source for correct information in regard to it. 

What is said in the second volume of my work upon the war 
upon the points referred to by Judge Clayton, I herewith ap- 
pend, that you may give it entire to your readers, if you think 
it of sufficient public interest to do so. I think if Judge Clay- 
ton had seen this, he would not written his letter. 

Yours, respectfully, 

Alexander II. Stephens. 



[extract feosi book appended.] 

" Major Heister — 'Pray tell us, Mr. Stephens, if you have no objec- 
tion, how this came about — how Mr. Davis came to be chosen President, 
and you Vice-President, under these circumstances.' 



150 THE EEVIEWEES EEVIEWED. 

" Mr. Stephens — ' I liave no objection to giving you my opinion on 
this subject, as to how Mr. Davis came to be chosen under the circum- 
stances. It is, however, only an opinion. I was somewhat surprised my- 
self at both results as they occurred ; but as I took only a very small part 
in the elections any way, I can speak of my own knowledge as to but few 
facts connected with either. The conclusion that I came to from all facts 
I learned from others, before and afterwards, was that the selection of !Mr. 
Davis grew out of a misapprehension on the part of some of the delegates 
of one, or, jjerhaps two or three of the States, in their consultations of the 
night before, as to the man that the Georgia delegation had determined 
to present, A majority of the States, as I understood, and afterwards 
learned, were looking to Georgia for the President.' 

"Major Heistek — 'Who was the man Georgia had determined to 
present ? ' 

" Mr. Stephens — ' Georgia, at the time, had not acted in the matter. 
Her delegation did not hold their consultation until next morning. Mr. 
Toombs was the man whom they then unanimously agreed to present ; at 
least there was perfect unanimity on the subject with all the delegates in 
attendance. Two, Mr. Hill and Mr. Wright, were absent. I now speak of 
my own knowledge. I was at this meeting of the. Georgia delegation, and 
therein was acted the only part I took in the matter. That was by making 
the motion for Mr. Toombs' nomination to the Convention, supposing that 
it would be unanimously acceptable to that body ; but in this meeting it 
was stated, after my motion was made, that two or three of the States, ia 
their consultations, which had been held the night before, had determined 
to present the name of Mr. Davis. The fact only, without any reason for 
it, was stated, also, only as something which had been heard, but not 
positively known. On this announcement, a committee of our delegation, 
of which Mr. Crawford was chaii-man, or perhaps he alone, (I am not cer- 
tain whether any, or how many more were united with him,) was appointed 
to ascertain if what had been heard in relation to the action of the other 
States referred to was true ; and if it was, it was understood, at the instance 
of Mr. Toombs, that his name was not to be presented by Georgia, and 
that our delegation would vote for Mr. Davis, and have no contest on the 
subject. 

" ' In this meeting of our delegation, after the announcement alluded to 
had been made, and the course in reference to it had been resolved upon, 
Mr. Kenan moved, that in case what had been stated as rumor should be 
found true, and tliename of Mr. Toombs should not be presented for the 
first office, then mine should be for the second. This motion was cordially 
seconded by Mr. Nisbet, and was unanimously agreed to, after a distinct 
understanding arrived at, by what I said in reference to it ; which was, 
that in no event Avas my name to be presented, unless it was first ascer- 
tained positively, that Mr. Davis' name was to go before the Convention, 



MR. CRAWFORD'S STATEilENT. 151 

and not that of Mr. Toombs ; and further, that my name would be unani- 
mously acceptable to the States and their respective delegations. These 
points the committee of our delegation was instructed speedily to inquire 
into and report.' " 



III. — Letter of Hon. Martin J. Cra^vford upon the same 

Subject. 

[fkom tue sun and times.] 

Columbus, Ga., June 25, IS'ZO.. 

Messi'S. Editors : — I see a communication this morning in 
your paper from Hon. A. M. Clayton, of Mississippi, in refer- 
ence to the election of the President of the Confederate States, 
in which the following paragraph occurs : 

" After a few days of anxious and intense labor, the Provisional Con- 
stitution was framed, and it became necessary to give it vitality by putting 
some one at the head of the Government. Then Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, 
approached me and said that it had been the wish of that State to make 
Mr. Stephens President ; but he (Crawford) had become satisfied that it 
was the wish of all the other States that Mr. Davis should be assigned to 
that position. He then asked me if Mr. Stephens would be acceptable to 
the Mississippi delegation as Vice-President. I replied, that I believed he 
would be their choice. "Without any effort on the part of the friends of 
either the election was made without the slightest dissent. Of the acci- 
dental complications referred to, I have not the least knowledge ; and al- 
ways thought the election of Mr. Davis arose from spontaneous conviction 
of his peculiar fitness. I have consulted no one on the subject, and have 
appended my name, only to avoid resting an important fact upon anony- 
mous authority." 

The mistake into which Mr. Clayton falls is that I should 
hare said to him that Georgia had desired Mr. Stephens as 
President. On the contrary, Georgia desired Mr. Toombs ; and 
the delegation in conference upon the subject on the morning 
of the election had so declared; and if, upon inquiry, South 
Carolina and Florida had not determined to cast their votes for 
Mr. Davis, then Mr. Toombs' name was to be brought forwasd. 
To ascertain how this matter stood was made my duty by the 
delegation, and with positive instructions from Mr. Toombs 



152 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

tliat liis name was not to be presented if those States liad de- 
clared for Mr. Davis in their separate meetings. This they had 
done, and that made it necessary to act upon the subject-matter 
of the Yice-Presidency as agreed upon in our meeting of the 
Georgia Delegates ; which was, that in the event Mr. Toombs' 
name was not presented for the first place, Mr. Stephens' should 
be for the second ; and I had been also requested to see whether 
that would bo acceptable to the other States, hence my inter- 
view with Mr. Clayton. I intended to say to him, and had 
always supposed that he so understood me, that our State in- 
tended to present a name for the Presidency ; but the action 
already taken by some of the States would prevent that, and I 
had called to see him for the purpose of ascertaining whether 
or not Mr. Stephens would bo an acceptable man to his dele- 
gation for Vice-President. 

Mr. Stephens never entertained an idea of the Presidency ; 
and, indeed, thought that it would not be proper for him to 
have it. This I know, because while the subject was being 
considered, some members of the Congress mentioned the matter 
to him, and he very promptly said that his name could not be 
used in that way. After these gentlemen left our lodgings he 
said to me, in his usual frank manner, that he had not been a 
leader in the movement which was about to result in the estab- 
lishment of a new Government, and that " to make him Presi- 
dent would be like taking a child out of the hands of its mother 
and giving it to a stepmother to raise." "But," continued he 
"some one who has been identified with the cause should be 
chosen, and whosoever he may be, he shall have the benefit of 
whatsoever experience and ability I can bring to his support. 
"We are entering upon new and untried fields, and I greatly 
fear that our people are not prepared for the great responsi- 
bilities M'liich are ahead of them. But Georgia, whose sover- 
eign will I am bound to obey, has taken her course, and that 
assigns me to my position, and in that, I will discharge to her 
my duty honestly and fiiithfully ; and if at last we shall lose all, 
I do not care to survive the liberties of my country."" 

I give in substance, if not in words, the language of this 
great and good man in the hours of our repose from the great 



MR, CRAWFORD'S STATEMEN"!. 153 

duties then devolving upon us, and wliicli neither he nor I ever 
expected to be brought before the pubhc eye. 

A dark day, about the 20th of February, 1862, came over 
us, and there was an interview and a solemn parting between 
Mr. Stephens and myself which I have never put upon paper ; 
but which I do not intend to leave unknown to the world, 
which sliows that he is as patriotic and true to his country as 
were the bravest and best of the Spartans to theirs : 

Touching the Presidency of the Confederate States, I have 
this to say : That for more than ten years, I had looked for the 
separation of the States, and the disconnection of the Southern 
from the Northern States of the American Union. I had acted 
for seven sessions of the Congi*ess of the United States with the 
extreme wing of the States' Rights men, and am free to say 
that at Washington, during that time, Mr. Davis was looked 
upon as the representative man, or at least as the man more 
identified with our view of States' Rights and Southern Rights 
than any other, and therefore was looked to as the man who 
should be chosen the first President of the Confederate States, 
or our new Government, under whatever name it might be 
organized. But the Provisional Congress was composed, to a 
large extent, of gentlemen who were not in the old Congress ; 
yet many of whom were men of experience, education, public 
service and substance. Our first duty was to frame a constitu- 
tion. Mr. Toombs, who had been for nearly twenty years in the 
American Congress, and for ten of them in the Senate — in 
the prime of his manhood and in the fulness of his intellectual 
vigor — was a member of the body. lie had never looked to 
the Presidency of the new Republic, either at Washington or 
Montgomer}', but in framing of the Constitution and the organi- 
zation of the Confederate Government, he showed himself to 
be one so wonderfully endowed with the very knowledge at 
that time mostly needed, that a manifestation in his favor was 
made by the delegates from several States to put him at the 
head of the government, lie, by persons unacquainted with 
him, is looked upon and considered as rash and impetuous. In 
conversation this is so, but when anything is to he done, it is 
not so. Notwithstanding all he may say in the highway, he is 



154 THE EEVIEWEES REVIEWED. 

tlie wisest and safest man iti counsel wliom it lias been my 
fortune to meet. 

It was this M'isdom, knowledge and discretion which directed 
attention to him at that time for the Presidency, and with the 
vote of South Carolina or Florida, as I understood, he would 
have been unanimously chosen as President ; for it was well 
agreed and understood that there should be but one name pre- 
sented for each place, and whosoever should command four 
States out of the six would receive the whole. I think that Mr. 
Davis was elected because he had been long identified with the 
theories which were then triumphant ; because of his supposed 
influence with the officers of the old army, as well as the fact 
than Messrs. Toombs, Cobb and Stephens were all from the 
same State, and the political waters were too shallow for them 
to turn in without injury to each other. 
Yery respectfully, 

Maetest J. Ceawtoed. 



AETICLE YI. 

CONFEDERATE INACTIVITY AFTER THE FIRST BATTLE OF MA- 
NASSAS, ISQl.— CRITICISM OF HON. E. BARKSDALE OF MISSISSIPPI 
ON THIS POINT. 

I. — Editoklvl of the Augusta (Ga.) " Coxstitutionalist," 31st 
July, 1870, by J. E. Eandall : with Letters feom Pkesi- 
DENT Davis ksh General Joseph E. Johnstox. 

The Truth of History. — Mr. Stejihens and Mr. BarJcsdale. 

Several weeks ago, Hon. E. Barksdale, editor of the Jackson 
(Miss.) Clarion, joined issue with lion. Alexander 11. Stephens 
in his statement in the second volume of the " ir«/' Between 
the States^'' on the much mooted question of the inactivity of 
the Confederate army at Manassas during the whole Fall of 
1861, after the great victory of the 21st of July. This article 
(which it now seems was not founded upon a perusal of the 
exact language of Mr. Stephens upon the subject^ but upon a 
" sketch " which we gave of the substance, as we understood it, 
of several parts of the book) maintained that Mr. Stephens had 
committed " a grave error, scarcely excusable in one occupying 
his position and who has undertaken to write for posterity." 
To show this error, Mr. Barksdale published, for the first time, 
a correspondence between President Davis and General Joseph 
E. Johnston upon the subject. That correspondence, as a part 
of the history of the times, we give to our readers. It is as 
follows : 

Richmond, Va., November 3, 1861. 
General J. E. Johnston, Commanding Department of the Potomac : 

Sir : Reports have been and are being widely circulated, to the effect 
that I prevented General Beauregard from pursuing the enemy after tho 
battle of Manassas, and had subsequently restrained him from advancing 
upon Washington City. Though such statements may have been made 
merely for my injury, and in that view their notice might be postponed to 



156 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

a more convenient season, they have acquired importance from the fact 
that they have served to create distrust, to excite disappointment, and 
must embarrass the administration in its further efforts to reinforce the 
armies of the Potomac, and generally to provide for the public defence. 

For these public considerations, I call upon you, as the Commanding- 
General, and as a party to all the conferences held by me on the 21st and 
22d of July, to say M'hether I obstructed the pursuit of the enemy after 
the victory at Manassas, or have ever objected to an advance or other active 
operation which it was feasible for the army to undertake ? 
Very respectfully, yours, etc., 

Jefferson Davis, 

Headquarters, Centreville, November 10, 1861. 
To His Excellency the President : 

Sir : I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 3d inst., in 
which you call upon me, " as the Commanding-General, and as a party to 
all the conferences held by you on the 21st and 22d of July, to say : 

" Whether you obstructed the pursuit after the victory of Manassas. 

" Or have ever objected to an advance or other active operations which 
it was feasible for the army to undertake." 

To the first question I reply No. The pursuit was " obstructed " by the 
enemy's troops at Centreville, as I have stated in my official report. In 
that report I have also said why no advance was made upon the enemy's 
capital for reasons as follows : 

The apparent freshness of the United States troops at Centreville, 
which checked our pursuit ; the strong force occupying the works near 
Georgetown, Arlington, and Alexandria ; the certainty, too, that General 
Patterson, if needed, would reach Washington with his army of more than 
30,000 sooner than we could ; and the condition and inadequate means of 
the army in ammunition, provisions, and transportation, prevented any 
serious thoughts of advancing against the capital. 

To the second question I reply that it has never leen feasible for the 
army to advance further than it has done — to the line of Fairfax C. H., 
with its advanced post at Upton's, Munson's and Mason's Hill. After a 
conference at Fairfax C. II., with the three senior general ofliccrs, you an- 
nounced it to be impracticable to give this army the strength which those 
officers considered necessary to enable it to assume the offensive. Upon 
which I drew it back to its present position. 

Most respectfully, your ob't serv't 



A true copy : 

G. W. C. Lee, Colonel and A. D. 0. 
To the President. 



J. E. Johnston. 



ME. STEPHENS' LETTER TO MR. BARKSDALE. 157 

We took no notice of this at the time, because we saw no 
new llglit thrown upon the subject by this correspondence, 
though it was never before published. 

In the Memphis Appeal^ of the 25th instant, we see a letter 
from Mr. Stephens to Mr. Barksdale on the subject of his edi- 
torial in the Clarion^ and Mr. Barhsdale's reply, as well as 
another exceedingly interesting jpaper, which, as far as w© arc 
aware, has never before been made public. This paper and the 
correspondence between Mr. Stephens and Mr. Barksdale we 
give as we find them in the Ajyjpeal — feelmg assured that they 
will be perused with no ordinary interest. 



II. Letters Refereed to by Mr. Randall : 

Liberty Hall, ) 

Crawfordtille, Ga., July 6, 1870. ) 

Hon. E. Barksdale : 

Dear Sir : — In the Clarion I see an editorial headed " The 
Battle of Manassas, &c.," which requires a notice i*rom me. 

You will pardon me, I trust, for saying that I feel quite sure 
if you had seen what is stated in the 2d volume of my book upon 
the war, now being issued from the press, you would not have 
expressed yourself as you did in this article ; and that you may 
know exactly what my statement in the book is, upon the sub- 
ject of the advance of the Confederate army, after the battle of 
Manassas, I send you an accurate extract from it (pages 4S8- 
489,) as follows : 

" Major Heister — ' One thing, Mr. Stephens, I should like to know just 
at this point ; and that is, why Gens. Johnston and Beauregard remained 
entirely inactive at Manassas during the whole Fall after the rout of Gen, 
McDowell's army on the 31st July ? Why did they not push on to 
Washington ? They must have had a very large force early in the Fall, 
and flushed with victory as they were, it has always been a mystery to me 
why they stood so perfectly quiet until McClcllan's new army was organ- 
ized almost within their sight ? Can you explain this ? ' 

" Mr. Stephens — ' I do not know that I can. With the military oper- 
ations, as I have said before, it is not my purpose to deal, except in so far 
as they bear upon the questions which we have directly in hand. A great 



158 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

deal has been said and written upon the subject of your enquiry. It has 
been said that Thomas J. Jackson, who afterwards became so famous 
under the appelhxtion of ' Stonewall,' and who was the Colonel of that 
name so favorably mentioned in General Johnston's report of the battle of 
the 21st of July, was urgent for an immediate pressing forward to Wash- 
ington. Some think his views were right. My own opinion, from the 
reports of both General Johnston and General Beauregard, as well as from 
other sources, is, that such a movement at that time, was altogether 
impracticable. As to the state of things afterwards, that is a different 
question. All I know upon that point is, that General Johnston did wish 
to make some movement of the sort in the early part of the Fall, when he 
was better prepared. Not, however, with the forces he then had, for they 
did not exceed forty thousand effective men, while McClellan had over 
fifty thousand when he took command at Washington on the 27th of July. 
Johnston's plan was to concentrate, as quickly as possible, at that j)lace, 
a force sufficient for this purpose, which could be done only by leaving 
bare remote points, then defended. For this object a council of war was 
held at Manassas. Mr. Davis went up from Richmond. He met Generals 
Johnston, Beauregard, and Gustavus W. Smith in this council. General 
Beauregard had been promoted to the rank of full General, for his gallantry, 
and great services on the 21st of July. General Smith, at the time, com- 
manded a division of this army, with the rank of Major-General. He was 
a graduate of *West Point, and recognized as an officer of great merit. 

" ' The result of the council of war so held was the disapproval, by Mr. 
Davis, of the policy suggested. Upon the merits of the views presented 
for or against its adoption, I have no speculative opinions to express. Of 
course all that could now be said on the subject would amount to nothing 
but speculations. General Beauregard was, not very long afterwards, 
transferred to a command in the W^est. This is all the explanation I can 
give of the matter you inquire about.' " 

The foregoing extract (wliicli contains all tliat is said in tlie 
book on the subject of your special comments in the article re- 
ferred to) I have had made, and verified from the work itself, 
and send it to you, with a request that you will present it, with 
this letter, to your readers. I deeply regret that I have not a 
spare copy of the volume to send you, that you may have the 
entire work before you in making any future comments upon 
this or any other part of it. In combatting any statement or 
position of mine, when truth is the object, it is essential to refer 
to the text itself, and not to the commentaries of others upon it. 

In this instance I think you will readily admit, there is no 
error in the statement as it stands in the book. There is cer- 



ME. BARKSDALE'S REPLY. 159 

tainly not tlie slightest inconsistency, or discrepancy between it 
and any fact brought to h'ght by the correspondence you pub- 
lished, for the first time, between President Davis and General 
Joseph E. Johnston. The facts in this instance, as in all others, 
as I understand them, are exactly as I have stated them ; and 
so I think you will find them to be upon close examination 
and full investigation. 

Of one thing you may rest assured, the great object Avith me 
throughout the work was the vindication of the truth of his- 
tory ; and if it be shown that I have fallen into error upon any 
point, however small or minor, it will be most cheerfully cor- 
rected in all subsequent editions. 

Yours, most respectfully, 

Alexander II. Stephens. 

[reply.] 

Jackson, Jiihj 16, 1870. 

Hon. A. H. Stephens: 

Dear Sir : — I have cheerfully complied with your request, 
to publish your letter, and also the extract enclosed, from your 
forthcoming (2d) volume. 

Finding in a newspaper published in your State what pur- 
ported to be a sketch authorized by you, of your work, on the 
subject alluded to, I reasonably inferred that you had been cor- 
rectly reported. And as the newspapers and the public gener- 
ally were receiving, as an unchallenged truth, the statement 
thus apparently endorsed, that President Davis prevented the 
General in command of the Confederate forces from pursuing 
the enemy from the field of Manassas to "Washington City, I 
deemed the occasion proper to produce the unpublished corre- 
spondence between President Davis and General J. E. Johns- 
ton, forever putting the statement at rest. A similar charge 
had been made in the Confederate Congress (in secret session), 
and the correspondence was then employed to disprove it. 

You will thus see that the responsibility of creating an ap- 
parent issue, in order to " vindicate the truth of history," did 
not rest with me. I have no taste for controversy on the sub- 
ject, and acted solely from a sense of duty to correct, with the 



IGO THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

means in my possession, an injustice (which I did not suppose 
to be intentional) to Mr. Davis, who, during the war, was silent 
under misrepresentation and unmerited reproach ; and who, by 
the approbation of his friends, has maintained a strict silence 
since its close ; but whose fame, nevertheless, is the property of 
his countrymen, and is especially dear to the people of his own 
State. 

It is evident from the extract which you have enclosed, that 
you were misreported by the Augusta Constitutionalist, but I 
regret to find that the issue is changed, from the statement that 
President Davis prevented the Confederate troops from follow- 
ing the enemy directly into "Washington City from the battle- 
field, to a statement that three months thereafter, the fruits of 
the victory, w^hicli had then passed into history, were not reaped 
by the Generals in consequence of his disapproval. 

Candor compels me respectfully to dissent from your opin- 
ion that there is " no error, in the statement as it stands in the 
book, nor discrepancy between it and the facts brought to light 
by the correspondence." Your language conveys a meaning 
widely variant from the statement of General Johnston. The 
extract produces the impression that the President disapproved 
the policy of activity and an advance movement, when in truth 
he favored such plan ; and it was not carried out because of his 
inability to furnish the troops declared to be essential by the 
Generals entrusted with command. In reply to his inquiry, 
whether he had prevented the troops from following up the 
rout at Manassas, General Johnston answered, "iTo." And 
in reply to his inquiry whether " he had ever objected to an 
advance, or other active operations which it was feasible for the 
army to undertake," General Johnston replied: '-'•It lias never 
heen feasible for the Army to advance further than it has done. 
After a conference at Fairfax C. II., with the three senior Gen- 
erals, you announced it to be impracticable to give the army 
the strength necessary to assume the offensive." This letter 
was dated tlie 21st of November of the Fall in the " early part" 
of which you report that President Davis overruled their pur- 
pose to advance on Washington. It does not authorize the 
statement, or warrant the inference, that they even advised an 



ME. BARKSDALE'S REPLY. 161 

advance movement ; much less does it show tliat the President 
objected to the assuming of offensive operations. It only ap- 
pears that he was unable to furnish the troops thought by the 
senior Generals to be necessary for a movement, if made against 
their main force ; because he was well aware that to have left 
bare Yorktown and Norfolk, (which were not " remote points," 
whether their proximity to the scene of active operations or 
their relations to the vital parts of the Confederacy be consid- 
ered), would have opened the way for the ascent of the enemy 
up James River to take the Capital, and cut olf the army of the 
Potomac from all supplies, by the destruction of railroads. 
This could have been done by a small force ; and still small 
forces would have achieved a like destructive work at Charles- 
ton and other important points. 

And while this discrepancy is shown to exist between the 
extract from your work and the facts revealed by the correspon 
dence, you will allow me further to say, that the statement i5 
faulty, not only in its erroneous representation of the plan of 
campaign of at least one of the parties whose names are intro- 
duced, but in its failure to mention that while he (President 
Davis) did not have the troops that were required for a direct 
attack on Washington, three months after the panic of McDow- 
ell's army had died out, and when the enemy, warned by the 
terrible lesson at Manassas, had prepared themselves to resist 
such a movement, he did advise an advance into lower Mary- 
land for the protection of the people of that section from the 
outrages to which they were subjected by troops under the 
command of General Sickles. The expedition was deemed 
feasible by the Generals ; but was never undertaken for reasons 
of which the public are not advised, but which may have been 
entirely sufficient. It is not my province to pronounce an 
opinion. Certainly nothing could have more surprised Presi- 
dent Davis, and the persons who were acquainted with the 
views which he had communicated to the officers in command, 
than the attempt to hold him responsible either for the failure 
to pursue the enemy at Manassas, or the inactivity which con- 
tinued until the retreat of the aiTny to the defences at Rich- 
mond. And it is worthy of remark, that the allegation of dis- 
11 



IQ2 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

approving active operations was never made against President 
Davis, after General Lee (with whose plans he entirely con- 
curred) took command. 

I am, very respectfully, yours, 

E. Baeksdale. 



III. — The Intekestestg Pater eefeered to by Me. Randall. 

Memorandum of Council of War signed hy Generals G. W. Smith. 
G. T. Beauregard, and J. E. Johnston. 

[a COPT.] 

On the 26th of September, 1861, General Joseph E. Johns- 
ton addressed a letter to the Secretary of War in regard to the 
importance of putting this army in condition to assume the 
offensive, and suggested that his Excellency the President, or 
the Secretary of War, or some one representing them, should, 
at an early day, come to the headquarters of the army at or 
near Fairfax Court House, for the purpose of deciding whether 
the army could be reinforced to the extent that the command- 
ing General deemed necessary for an offensive campaign. 

His Excellency the President arrived at Fairfax Court 
House a few days thereaflter, late in the afternoon, and pro- 
ceeded to the quarters of General Beauregard. On the same 
evening General Johnston and I called to pay our respects. No 
ofticial subjects of importance were alluded to in that interview. 
At eight o'clock the next evening, by appointment of the Presi- 
dent, a conference was had between himself. General Johnston, 
General Beauregard and myself. Various matters of detail were 
introduced by the President, and talked over between himself 
and the two senior Generals. 

Having but recently arrived, and not being well acquainted 
with the special subjects referred to, I took little or no part in 
this conversation. Finally, with perhaps some abniptness, I 
said : " Mr. President, is it not possible to put this army in con- 
dition to assume the active offensive ? " adding that this was a 



MEMORANDUM OF COUNCIL OF WAR. 163 

question of vital importance, upon which the success or failure 
of our cause might depend. 

This question brought on discussion. 

The precise conversation which followed I do not propose 
to give. It was an argument. There seemed to be little differ- 
ence of opinion between us in regard to general views and 
principles. It was clearly stated and agreed to, that the mili- 
tary force of the Confederate States was at the highest point it 
could attain without arms from abroad ; that the portion of this 
particular army present for duty was in the finest fighting con- 
dition; that if kept- inactive it must retrograde immensely in 
every respect during the Winter, the effect of which was fore- 
seen and dreaded by us all. 

The enemy was daily increasing. "We looked forward to a 
sad state of things at the opening of a Spring campaign. 

These and other points being agreed upon without argu- 
ment, it was again asked: "ISIr. President, is it not possible to 
increase the effective strength of this army, and put us in a 
condition to cross the Potomac and carry the war into the 
enemy's country ? Can you not, by stripping other points to 
the least they will bear, and even risking defeat at all other 
places, put us in condition to move forward? Success here 
gains all." In explanation, and as an illustration of this, the 
unqualified opinion was advanced that if for want of adequate 
strength on our part in Kentucky the Federal forces should 
take military possession of that whole State, and even enter 
and occupy a portion of Tennessee, a victory gained by the 
army beyond the Potomac would, by threatening the heart of 
the Korthern States, compel their armies to fall back, free Ken- 
tucky, and give us the line of the Ohio within ten days there- 
after. On the other hand, should our forces in Tennessee and 
Southern Kentucky be strengthened so as to enable us to take 
and to hold the Ohio River as a boundary, a disastrous defeat of 
this army would at once be followed by an overwhelming wave 
of Northern invaders, that would sweep over Kentucky and 
Tennessee, extending to the northern part of the cotton States, 
if not to New Orleans. Similar views were expressed in regard 
to ultimate results in Northwestern Virginia being dependent 



164 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

upon the success or failure of this ; and various other iUustra- 
tions were offered, showing that success here was success every- 
where ; defeat here, defeat everywhere ; and that this was the 
point upon which all the available forces of the Confederate 
States should be concentrated. 

It seemed to be conceded by all that our force, at this time 
here, was not sufficient for assuming the offensive beyond the 
Potomac; and that even with a much larger force, an attack 
upon their army, under the guns of their fortifications on this 
side of the river, was out of the question. The President asked 
me what number of men was necessary, in* my opinion, to war- 
rant an offensive campaign — to cross the Potomac, cut off the com- 
munications of the enemy with their fortified capital, and carry 
the war into their own country. I answered fifty thousand sea- 
soned soldiers — explaining that by "seasoned soldiers" I meant 
such men as we had here present for duty ; and added that they 
would have to be drawn from the Peninsula about Yorktown, 
Norfolk, from Western Virginia, Pensacola, or wherever might 
be most expedient. Generals Johnston and Beauregard both 
said that a force of sixty thousand such men would be necessary ; 
and that this force would require large and additional transpor- 
tation and munitions of war, the supplies here being entirely 
inadequate for an active campaign in the enemy's country, even 
with our present force. In this connection there was some dis- 
cussion of the difficulties to be overcome, and the probabilities 
of success ; but no one questioned the disastrous results of re- 
maining inactive throughout the Winter. ^Notwithstanding the 
belief that many in the Northern army were opposed on prin- 
ciple to invading the Southern States, and that they would fight 
better in their own homes than in attacking ours, it was be- 
lieved that the best, if not the only plan to insure success, was 
to concentrate our forces and attack the enemy in their own 
country. The President, I think, gave no definite opinion in 
regard to the number of men necessary for that purpose ; and I 
am sure that no one present considered this a question to be 
finally decided by any other person than the Commanding-Gen- 
eral of this army. Peturning to the question that had been 
twice asked, the President expressed surprise and regret that 



MEMORANDUM OF COUNCIL OF WAR. 165 

the number of surplus arms here was so small, and, I thought, 
spoke bitterly of this disappointment. He then stated that at 
that time no reinforcements could be furnished to this army of 
the character asked for, and that the most that could be done 
would be to furnish recruits to take the surplus arms in store 
here (say 2,500 stand) ; that the whole country was demanding 
protection at his hands, and praying for arms and troops for 
defence. He had long been expecting arms from abroad, but 
he had been disappointed. He still hoped to get them ; but he 
had no positive assurance that they would be received at all. 
The manufacture of arms in the Confederate States was as yet 
undeveloped to any considerable extent. AYant of arms was 
the great difficulty. He could not take any troops from the 
points named, and without arms from abroad could not reinforce 
this army. He expressed regret, and seemed to feel deeply, as 
did every one present. 

"When the President had thus clearly and positively stated 
his inability to put this army in the condition deemed by the 
Generals necessary before entering upon an active offensive 
campaign, it was felt that it might be better to run the risk of 
almost certain destruction, fighting upon the other side of the 
Potomac, rather than see the gradual dying out and deteriora- 
tion of this army during a "Winter, at the end of which the 
term of enlistment of half the force would expire. The pros- 
pect of the Spring campaign to be commenced under such dis- 
couraging circumstances was rendered all the more gloomy by 
the daily increasing strength of an enemy already much supe- 
rior in numbers. On the other hand was the hope and expec- 
tation that before the end of "Winter arms would be introduced 
into the country, and all were confident that we could then not 
only protect our own country, but successfully invade that of 
the enemy. General Johnston said that he did not feel at lib- 
erty to express an opinion as to the practicability of reducing the 
strength of our force at points not within the limits of his com- 
mand; and with but few further remarks from any one, the 
answer of the President was accepted as final, and it was felt 
that there Avas no other course left but to take a defensive posi- 
tion and await the enemy. 



166 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

If they did not advance we had but to await the Winter 
and its results. 

After the main question was dropped the President pro- 
posed, instead of an active, oifensive campaign, we should 
attempt certain partial operations. A sudden blow against 
Sickles and Banks, or to break the bridge over the Monocacy. 
This, he thought, besides injuring the enemy, would exert a 
good influence over our troops, and encourage the people of the 
Confederate States generally. 

In regard to attacking Sickles, it was stated in reply that, 
as the enemy controlled the river with his ships of war, it would 
be necessary for us to occupy two points on the river, one above 
and the other below our point of crossing, that we might by 
our batteries prevent their armed vessels from interfering with 
the passage of the troops. In any case, the difficulty of cross- 
ing large bodies over wide rivers in the vicinity of such an enemy 
and the re-crossing made such expeditions hazardous. It was 
agreed, however, that if any opportunity should occur offering 
reasonable chances of success, the attempt should be made. 

During this conference or council, which lasted perhaps two 
hours, all was earnest, serious, deliberate. The impression 
made upon me was deep and lasting ; and I am convinced that 
the foregoing statement is not only correct as far as it goes, but, 
in my opinion, it gives a fair idea of all that occurred at that 
time in regard to the question of our crossing the Potomac. 

Centrktille Va., Jamiary 31, 1862. 

Signed in triplicate. 

[Signed] G. "W. Smith, 

Major-General, 

My recollection of the above conference agrees fully with 
this statement of General G. W. Smith. 

[Signed] G. T. Beatjeegaed, 

General C. S. A. 

[Signed] J. E. Johnston^, 

General. 



I 



MR. RANDALL'S COMMENTS CONCLUDED. 167 



TV. — Conclusion of Mr. Randall's EniroRDkL in which the 
Foregoing Letters and Paper, had been incorporated. 

In reply to Mr. Barksdalc, so far as it concerns the " sketch " 
in the Constitutionalist, to which he refers in his letter to Mr. 
Stephens, we feel it incumbent on us, as a duty, to add, in con- 
clusion, that he has fallen into two " grave errors " himself. 

1st. The " sketch " in the Constitutionalist, to which he al- 
ludes, did not " purport " to be " authorized hy " Mr. Stephens. 
There was no such indication or intimation in it from beginning 
to end. In point of fact, Mr. Stephens knew no more about it, 
or the design of the editor of this paper to give such a " sketch " 
of the book, until he saw it in print, than he did of the editorial 
of the Clarion in question. 

2d. There is in that " sketch " or review of the book no 
such statement as "that President T>a.\\& prevented the General 
in command of the Confederate forces from 2)ursuing the enemy 
■from tlie field of Manassas to Washingto?i City." 

It was to rebut this statement, Mr. Barksdale says, he pro- 
cured for the first time the correspondence between President 
Davis and General Johnston. The correspondence does con- 
clusively rebut that statement, if anybody ever made it. But 
Mr. Barksdale, added by the most powerful microscope, will 
fail to find it in the article of the Constitutionalist referred to. 
The language of that article, in giving briefly what we under- 
stood Mr. Stephens to say, in reply to the question touching the 
inactivity of the army during the Fall of 1861, was : " The 
responsibility for the failure to advance after the battle of Ma- 
nassas is referred to President Davis." There is nothing in 
this about President Davis having " prevented the General in 
command of the Confederate forces from pursuing the enemy 
from the field of Manassas to "Washington City." There was 
no allusion whatever to an immediate advance -of the army. 
The allusion was to the general inactivity of that army, em- 
braced in the question put to Mr. Stephens by Major Ileister. 
On this point, we said the responsibihty for the failure to ad- 
vance is " referred to President Davis." 



168 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

"We did not understand Mr. Stephens as intending to cast 
any censure npon President Davis in the detail of facts as far as 
lie knew them ; and we certainly did not mean to cast any upon 
liim in the version of the substance of those facts. Responsi- 
bility does not of itself imply censure. That depends entirely 
upon other considerations. Wlio would think that any one 
meant to cast censure upon Gen. Taylor for saying that the 
7rsj)onsihilitf/ of fighting the battle of Buena Yista rested entirely 
upon him ? We may have misconceived Mr. Stephens' idea. 
We have had no conference with him on this point, either be- 
fore or since the publication of our " sketch " alluded to ; but 
we submit to intelligent readers, with all the facts before them, 
whether he was ^^misreported" by us, as the Clarion says. 
With the full text of the work before us, we believe that Mr. 
Stephens means by what he says in it, that the resj)07isibiUty of 
the inactivity/ of the army of Gen. Johnston, during the Fall 
of 1861, does rest upon Mr. Davis. But we do not understand 
him in so holding to mean to pronounce any judgment of cen- 
sure against the President for exercising that responsibility in 
disapproving the pl<in of aggressive movements submitted to 
him by the Generals in the Council of War that was held, the 
account of which now, for the first time, has been given to the 
public. 

Whether President Davis' views or those of his Generals 
were the wiser, under all the circumstances of the case, it is not 
our province or disposition at this time to pass judgment. But 
it docs seem to us, in view of all the facts as thus far disclosed, 
that the Tesponsibility of the course of events, in a military 
aspect, during the Fall of 1861, did rest upon him. This by no 
means, however, implies censure of itself. It may be that his 
views were founded upon a vast deal more of statesmanship and 
generalship than those of Johnston, Beauregard, and Smith. 
That, as Mr. Stephens says, "is a matter of speculation." His 
views, howev-er, prevailed. He was the Commander-in-Chief, 
and we are surprised to see so devoted a friend to his reputation, 
as Mr. Barksdale is, so sensitive upon the simple statement of 
BO palpable a fact. 

Wc can assure Mr. Barksdale, in making these remarks, 



ME. STEPHENS' REJOIN"DER TO MR. BARKSDALE. 169 

that we entertain no unkind feelings toward him or Mr. Davis. 
Our sole object is to set him right so far as the Constitutioyialist 
is concerned, and the " sketch " which was, as he says, the 
foundation on which he produced his first article in the Clarion. 



V. — Mk. Stephens' Kejoinder to Mr. Barksdale's Reply to 
His First LiirrrER. 

LiDEHTY Hall, 1 

Crawfoudtille, Ga., Aitgust 6, 1870. ) 

Hon. E. Barksdale : 

Dear Sir : — A copy of your paper of the 22d ult., contain- 
ing my letter to you of the 6th, about the events succeeding 
the first " Battle of Manassas," and your reply to it, of the 10th, 
etc., was received several days ago ; but the press of other busi- 
ness, when I have been able to write at all, since then, has pre- 
vented me from responding to you sooner upon the subject. 

You will allow me, I trust, a few words further to your 
readers, and the public generally, through the medium of the 
Clarion^ by way of vindication. Not, however, for the purpose 
or in the spirit of controversy. Indeed, upon the leading and 
important facts, as they stand stated in the extract I sent you, 
it does seem to me that there can be no controversy between 
intelligent minds ; and until you distinctly specify some error 
irt that statement I have nothing more to say in reference to it. 
My object at this time is simply and briefly to call attention to 
some points in your reply which, if permitted to pass unnoticed 
by me, might lead many to form very erroneous conclusions in 
reference to the matters embraced in them. 

In the first place, then, you will please allow me to remark 
that you were mistaken in saying, as you did in your reply to 
me, that the " sketch " of the 2d volume, of my work on the 
war, published in the Augusta Constitutionalist^ to which you 
refer, ^'' i^urported " to be " authorized hj meP When I saw 
your reply I thought it strange that any such feature about that 
article should have escaped my attention ; for, in point of fact, 
I knew nothing about it until I saw it in print. I did not know 



170 THE EEVIEWEES REVIEWED. 

tliat the wi'iter liad any intention of preparing anything of the 
kind ; and npon reference to it since, I see that you were mis- 
taken in this particular — there is nothing about that article 
bearing any such '•'• j^r^ortP 

In the second place, you will allow me to say, there is in 
that " sketch," or review, no such statement as " that President 
Davis jpr evented the General in command of the Confederate 
forces from pursuing the enemy from the field of Manassas to 
Washington CityP etc. 

This is the statement so " ajpparently endorsed'''' by me which 
you say you deemed it proper to put at rest forever, by the 
publication of the correspondence between President Davis and 
General Johnston in your first article in the Clarion. 

Now if that " sJcetch " had represented me as having made 
any such statement in the book as that thus attributed to it in 
your reply to me, I should have corrected the Editor, and set 
him right in this matter, as promptly as I did you upon seeing 
your first article in the Clarion. The correspondence you pro- 
duced did most certainly show, that any statement such as that, 
by whomsoever made, if by anybody, was exceedingly erroneous. 
But you must remember that I made no such statement, nor 
did the Editor of the Constitutionalist in the article referred to. 

In the third and last place, I wish now simply to add, that 
in the extract from ' the book, which you had before you, and 
which the public have, with your reply — in that part treating 
of the events subsequent to the first Battle of Manassas and 
President Davis in connection with them, there is no such state- 
ment or expression as " that three months thereafter the fruits 
of the victory which had then])assed into history were not reaped 
hy the Generals in consequence of his disa2^provalP 

This is the statement which you undertook to assail in your 
reply to me ; but I have only to remind you and your readers 
that no such language as this is to be found in the extract or 
the book — none such was ever used by me on any occasion. 
I am responsible only for my own language, and my own words 
— their due and proper import I think I understand ; and if 
you can point out a single error in the statement of facts as it 
stands in the extract and in the book, in my own language on 



ME. BARKSDALE'S SUR-REJOIKDER, 171 

the subject, I shall be greatly obliged to you to do it — this 
you have certainly not yet done. 

Yours most respectfully, 

Alexandkb n. Stephens. 



YI. — Mr. Babksdale's Sue-kejoinder. 

Jackson, August, 1870. 

lion. A. H. Stephens : 

Dear Sir : — I -svill publish your letter with pleasure, ac- 
companying it with a brief reply. The main object of the 
correspondence so far as I am concerned, has been accomplished. 
The " truth of history has been vindicated." The heretofore 
unpublished correspondence between President Davis and Gen- 
eral J. E. Johnston has removed from the public mind the 
erroneous impression that the failure of the Confederate Amiy 
to j)ursue the enemy after the battle of Manassas was due to the 
interference of the former; and the no less erroneous statement 
that he subsequently opposed a forward movement, and thus 
prevented the fruits of the victory from being reaped, has also 
been corrected. Since the appearance of my last letter on this 
subject, both the fects have been verified by the publication of 
an account of the Conference which was held in October, 1861, 
over the signature of Generals Smith, Johnston, and Beauregard. 
You will pardon me for expressing the hope that corrections, or 
explanations, corresponding to them, will appear in a revised 
edition of your second volume. 

In conclusion, I will briefly notice the points contained in 
your last letter. 

1. The inference that you authorized or sanctioned the 
publication of the original " sketch," was warranted by your 
having furnished its author with advance sheets of your work. 
It was copied by the whole press of the country, North and 
South, and accepted by the public as a true statement of the 
facts to which it related ; and yet after weeks of circulation, it 
failed to receive your correction. 

2. In writing that President Davis had been charged with 



172 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

" preventing the General in command of tlie Confederate forces 
from pursuing tlic enemy from Manassas to Washington," I did 
not pretend to quote the exact language employed, but was 
commenting on a statement which you will admit has the same 
meaning precisely. The following is the extract from the 
sketch, which elicited the comment : " The respmisihility of the 
failure to advance after the hattle is referred {attributed) to Mr. 
DamsP 

3. True, the extract from your book does not say, in so 
many words, that President Davis " prevented the fruits of the 
victory from being reaped three months after it had passed into 
history by disapproving a forward movement." Having quoted 
your precise language, I could not have attributed any other 
words to you than those actually employed. But I did 'mean 
to state that you had said in effect jprecisely the same thing as the 
following quotation from^ your hooh will show : 

" Such a movement (as an immediate pressing forward to Washington 
after the battle) was altogether impracticable. As to the state of things 
aftericards, that is a different question. All -I know on that point is that 
Gen. Johnston did wish to maJce some movement of the sort early in the fall 
.... For this object a council of war was held. . . . The result of the 
council teas the disapproval hy Mr. Davis of the plan proposed.^'' 

The battle was fought on the 21st of July. The council was 
held in the early part of October ; and you must concur with 
me that Mr. Davis is represented to have "disapproved" a 
movement "to reap the fruits of the victory three months after 
it had passed into history." 

If the sketch had not erroneously reported you to have stated 
that Mr. Davis was responsible " for the failure to advance after 
the battle of Manassas ; " and if you had not really alleged that 
he had " disapproved" " of some movement of the sort " in the 
council of war held in October, there could have been no occa- 
sion for a correspondence, which I repeat has been conducted 
on my part in no spirit of controversy, 

I am yours, very respectfully, 

E. Bakksdale. 



ME. STEPHENS' REBUTTAL. 173 

VII. — ^Mb. Stephens' Lettek in Rebuttal. 

Liberty Hall, 1 

Crawfordville, Ga., Avffust 28, IS'ZO. \ 

Hon. E. Bakksdale : 

Dear Sir : — A copy of the Clarion of the 18th inst., contain- 
ing mj letter to you of the 6th inst., ("by way oi liejoinder " 
not of vindication as printed) ; and your comments about it, 
was received this morning. 

This requires further notice from me, lest silence on my 
part may be construed into an admission of some matters which 
I am very far from making. 

You will therefore please allow me to say to you, and to 
your readers, that I do not admit that the statement in the 
Constitutionalist, on which you had commented in your pre- 
vious letter, "has the same meaning precisely" as the para- 
phrase of it by you. I do not admit that it had, in its whole 
connection, any such meaning whatever, as that conveyed by 
the words you used in giving its pui*port. 

You will allow me also to say, that I do not " concur with " 
you in holding that " Mr. Davis is represented " by me in the 
2nd vol. of my work upon the war, as having " disapproved" a 
movement, " to reap the fruits of the victory " (of the first 
battle of Manassas) " three months after it had passed into his- 
tory." 

You say in substance, that I must concur with you in holding 
that this is the purport of my statement in the book. Now I 
say to you, most respectfully and emphatically, that / do not 
concur in any such construction of the language used by me as 
that by which any such distorted meaning can be given to it ; 
and I enter my protest against any such construction being put 
upon it. 

The substance of what is said in the book as to my knowl- 
edge of the facts bearing upon the inactivitu of the Confederate 
Army at Manassas during the Fall of 1801 — after the battle 
of the 21st July, you and your readers will recollect amounts to 
this : 



174 THE REVIEWEES EEVIEWED. 

The Confederate Army at that place was, in my opinion, in 
no condition to make an advance movement immediately after 
that battle ; that Gen. Johnston did wish to make some move- 
ment of the sort in the early Fall after he was better prepared. 

That his plan was to concentrate as quickly as possible at 
that place a force sufficient for that purpose, which could he done 
only hy leaving hare remote jpoints then defended / that for the 
consideration of that policy a Council of "War was held at his 
headquarters ; that Mr. Davis went up from Richmond, and met 
in this Council Generals Johnston, Beauregard, and Gustavus 
"W. Smith ; that the result of this Council of War was the dis- 
approval of Mr. Davis of the policy proposed — that is, he dis- 
approved of the proposition submitted for an advance movement, 
by concentrating at Manassas the required forces, which could be 
done only hy leaving hare remote pla/ies tJien defended. 

This is a brief but clear statement of the substance of all 
that is set forth in the book about the subject. In it there is 
nothing but the mention of facts only, so far as my knowledge 
extended. 

On the merits or demerits of the policy suggested, I gave 
you no opinion whatever ; on the contrary, I expressly abstained 
from giving any opinion. My object was simply to state the 
facts accurately as far as they had come to my knowledge, 
leaving all to form their own opinions from the facts stated. 

Now the only real question between us — that which gave 
rise to this correspondence — is whether the statement of facts 
as above set forth, being substantially the same as that set forth 
in the book, be correct or not. 

You will recollect that, in your first article on this subject in 
the Clarion, you maintained that I had in it committed an 
" error, scarcely excusable in one occupying my position, and 
who had undertaken to write for posterity." In my reply of, 
the Gth of July last, I gave you the exact extract of the book in 
full upon the subject, and stated that " if it be shown that I had 
fallen into an error upon any point, however small a one, it 
would be most cheerfully corrected in all subsequent edi- 
tions." 

Without having pointed out any error in the statement, as it 



MR. STEPHENS' REBUTTAL. 175 

stands in my own language in the book, in eitlier of your sub- 
sequent letters to me, you nevertheless express a " hope " in the 
last of these letters received to-day, that " corrections and 
explanations will appear in a revised edition of the 2d volume" 
of my work, " corresponding" with the facts brought to light by 
the correspondence (which you published for the first time) 
between President Davis and General Joseph E. Johnston, and 
by the account of the Council of War or Conference near 
Manassas in the Fall of 18G1, lately given to the public for the 
first time over the signatures of Generals Smith, Beauregard, 
and Johnston, and which, I may add, was most probably brought 
to light by this correspondence. 

Now in reply to this, I ask you most seriously and earnestly, 
wherein is there the slightest discrepancy or derangement be- 
tween any thing in either of these lately published papers, and 
the statement as it stands in the book ? Do they not confirm 
it in every particular ? If I had had the correspondence be- 
tween President Davis and General Johnston, and the account 
of the conference referred to by you (recently Y>ublished over 
the signatures of Generals Smith, Beauregard, and Johnston) 
before me when I was penning the statement of the facts as it 
stands in the book, could I have possibly made it more strictly 
conform to both these papers than it does ? 

Does not General Johnston, in his letter to President Davis, 
published by you, say, in substance, that the army at Manassas 
was not in a condition to make an advance movement imme- 
diately after the battle of the 21st of July, 1861 ? Is not this in 
strict accordance with what I said upon that subject ? 

Does not General Johnston also in his letter of the 10th of 
November, 1861, expressly say to Mr. Davis, " after a confer- 
ence at Fairfax C. II. with these senior general officers, you an- 
nounced it to be impracticable to give this army the strength 
which these officers considered necessary to enable it to assume 
the offensive ? " 

Does this statement conflict in the least with the statement 
by me ? So far from conflicting with it, does it not sustain it 
to the very letter so far as it goes ? 

Then, as to the account of the Conference or Council of 



176 THE EEYIEWERS EEVIEWED. 

War recently published by Generals Smith, Beauregard, and 
Johnston. 

Does not this show clearly that General Johnston did desire 
in the early Fall of 1861 to make some sort of a forward or 
aggressive movement ? Does it not show that a Council of 
War was held upon the subject at or near Manassas, at which 
Mr. Davis was present, in the latter part of September ? Does 
it not show that General Johnston did submit for consideration 
such plan as I stated for an advance movement ? Does it not 
show that Mr. Davis disapj^roved of it % Does not the paper to 
which you refer represent him as saying that " he could not 
take any troops from the points named? " Does not this paper 
expressly state in behalf of the General in Command that this 
answer of the President " was accepted as final and it was 
felt that there was no other course left but to take a defensive 
position and await the enemy." 

Is there, my Dear Sir, anything in this statement in conflict 
with mine ? Is there anything in the written paper to which 
you refer in conflict in the slightest particular with the state- 
ment of facts on this subject as it stands in the book % If there 
is, I assure you it has escaped my attention, and I repeat in 
conclusion, that if I had had that paper before me when my 
statement was written, I do not think that I could have made it 
more strictly in conformity with its general details than it now 
stands. I, therefore, as yet see no reason for revising or modi- 
fying the text in any particular. If there be any error in it, I 
do not yet perceive it. 

Yours respectfully, 

Alexander H. Stephens. 



AETICLE YII. 

THE BATTLE OF OLUSTEE, OR OCEAN POND. 

I. — EDnoKiAL or the Savannah " Eepublican," July, 1870, 
ON THE Subject. 

" Olustee:^ 
At the instance of a friend, we some days ago published the 
resolutions of the Confederate Congress thanking General 
Finegan for the success of the battle of Olustee or Ocean Pond, 
Mr. Stephens in his history having given the credit to General 
Colquitt. AYe had not the slightest idea then, nor have we 
now, of engaging in any controversy on the subject, our object 
being to bring to the attention of Mr. Stephens a fact which we 
thought he may have overlooked in preparing the materials for 
his history, viz. : that the command at Olustee was in the hands 
of General Finegan ; and however brave and skilful subordin- 
ates may prove themselves, it is usual to ascribe the greatest 
glory of the victory to that oflScer. Mr. Stephens' reply to that 
publication, addressed to a gentleman of this city, who for- 
warded to him a copy of the HejmUicmi's article, will be found 
in another column. 



n. — Letter of Mr. Stephens (referred to) on Same 

Subject. 

Liberty Hall, ) 

Cratvtordville, Georgia, Juli/ 13, 1870. ( 

Mr. Charles Ellis, Savannah, Ga. : 

Dear Sir: — Yours of the 11th instant, inclosing a slip from 

the Savannah Hepublican of the 8th instant, was received by 

me this morning. That slip is in these words : 
12 



178 THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

" ' Honor to Whom Honor is Due? — As there has been sopae effort — we 
are persuadccl purely from the want of correct information — to deprive a 
brave oflicer of the credit that is his due, we transcribe from the Acts of 
the Confederate Congress as follows : 

" ' JOINT RESOLUTION OF THANKS TO GENERAL FINEGAN AND THE 
OFFICERS AND MEN OF HIS COMMAND. 

" ' Resolved hj the Congress of the Confederate States of America, That 
the thanks of Congress are due and are hereby tendered to Brigadier- 
General Joseph Finegan, and the officers and men of his command, for 
the skill and gallantry displayed in achieving the signal victory of Ocean 
Pond, Florida, on the 20th of February last. 

[Signed] Tnos. S. Bocock, 

" ' Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
R. U. T. Hunter, 
" ' President jpv'o tern, of the Senate. 
" 'Approved 17th of May, 1864. 
"'Jefferson Davis.' " 

You call my attention to tins slip, but for what object or with 
what purpose you do not state ; and I should be at a loss to 
imagine if I had not a few days ago received through the hands 
of a friend, a slip from another paper, in which comments were 
made upon the statement in the second volume of my work 
upon the war, in relation to the battle of Ocean Pond, refeiTed 
to in the resolutions you have enclosed to me. 

From this, and the language of the Editor of the Hepuhlican 
accompanying "the reproduction of the resolutions, I am led to 
infer that you as well as Mr. Sneed and others, may be of 
opinion that the statement in the work referred to is calculated 
"to deprive a brave officer (General Finegan) of the credit 
tl;at is his due." 

If so, you and all others may be assured that nothing was 
further from my intention than any design of that character. 
My object was to give the facts of the case without detracting 
from or magnifying the merits of any one. 

The statement in the book (vol. 2, page 5 SI) is in these 
words : 

" This year " (the third year of the war) " was ushered in, even in its 
dawn, by the splendid victory at Ocean Pond, Florida, on the 20th Feb- 
ruary, achieved under the lead of Brigadier-General Alfred H. Colquitt, 
against General Truman Seymour, commanding the Federals. With less 
than 5,000 men Colquitt put Seymour to rout, with more than 6,000 ; 



MR. STEPHENS ON BATTLE OF OLUSTEE. 179 

killing, vrounding, and capturing 2,500 men, and taking three Napoleon 
guns, two ten-poundcr Parrots, and 3,000 stand of small-arms." 

Tins is all in perfect accord witli the facts as I understand 
them. It is true, as is well known, that the brave and gallant 
Finegan was in command of the general military operations on 
the Confederate side at that time in Florida. 

But it is equally true, as I understand it, that he had as- 
signed the entire command of all the Confederate forces engaged 
in the action at Ocean Pond to General Colquitt. The whole 
battle then, from beginning to end, was committed to his dis- 
cretion, direction, and control ; with but one limitation, and 
that was " if hard pressed to fall back to the works at Olustee 
station," 

This splendid victory, therefore, was certainly, as I under- 
stand it, " achieved wider the lead of General ColquittP 

The affirmance of this truth, if the facts be as I think they 
are, by no means detracts from the honor conferred upon 
General Finegan by Congress, for his superior skill and forecast 
in having a concentration of forces to meet Gen. Seymour's 
advance ; and in assigning the command of these forces to the 
officer he did. It only renders to General Colquitt that honor 
which is justly due him for the important part he acted, as one of 
the officers under General Finegan (and embraced equally with 
him though not named in the same resolution) " in achieving 
this signal victory.'' 

This great result at Ocean Pond, so far as depended upon 
field ojperations, as I understand the foct, was achieved under 
General Colquitt's immediate lead and general direction. This 
is the substance of the statement in the book upon that subject ; 
and I think upon close examination the facts will be found to be 
substantially as therein stated. 

This certainly does not detract from the high merits of Gen. 
Finegan who had control of the general camjjaign. 

You will please do me the favor to ask Mr. Sneed to give 
this communication a place in the columns of the RepidMcan. 

With kindest regards and sentiments of the highest respect, 
I remain yours truly, 

Alexander H. Stephens. 



ARTICLE YIII. 

TEE FORGED SPEECH. 

I. — Lettek of Mk. Stephens on this Subject. 

Liberty Hall, ) 

Cbawfoedville, Ga., October 28, 1870. S 

Col. John W. Forney, Editor of the Sunday Morning Chronicle, 
Washington, D. C. : 

Deab Sm: — I have just come in possession, through the 
kindness of a friend, of a copy of your paper of the 4th ult., 
and my attention is called to quite an extended editorial in it 
upon the " Constitutional Yiew of the Late War Between the 
States," which requires special and prompt notice by me. 

With the general tone and character of the editorial referred 
to, I have no disposition to complain, under the circumstances. 
On the contrary, for what you say in it of my position, and the 
general "respect" in which I was "held by the reflecting peo- 
ple of the country " before the " Rebellion^'' as you are pleased 
to call the late "war between the States," and of my efforts to 
preserve the Institutions of our ancestors on the Federative 
basis on which they were founded, you have my thanks. Of 
course all this was justly forfeited in your estimation, according 
to the views you entertain of the subject, by my subsequent 
conduct. Hence, what you say of ^^Belel Leaders,^'' and other 
things of like character, are but legitimate sequences from your 
premises; as is also your seeming amazement that any one 
should attempt to justify what you look upon as treason. 
These parts of your notice of the work, therefore, contain 
nothing more than might have been expected from any one 
occupying your position. Upon them I have no inclination to 
comment at present. 



ME. STEPHENS ON" THE FORGED SPEECH. 181 

But you will indulge me in saying, I trust, that there is 
matter incorporated in this editorial, which, coming from the 
source it does, or being in this instance endorsed by your au- 
thority, as it is, I cannot permit to pass in silence. The wrong 
is too great, too grave, and too atrocious. The error is too foul 
and flagrant to be allowed to go to your readers without an ex- 
posure. The cause of truth and justice demands its correction 
by me. 

In the article referred to, you say of the work you were 
reviewing : 

"And we have a second book of several hundred pages, justifying the 
rebellion against the Government, capable of all these great ends, and 
quoting the Constitution of the United States in the cause of that justifi- 
cation." 

It is not my purpose at this time, to take any exceptions at 
your statement thus made of the object of the work ; but what 
I do most decidedly object to is the matter which you adduced 
as argument "fully replying" to the positions maintained in 
the two volumes. 

These positions you do not even attempt to assail yourself 
directly, nor do you venture to deny that, if they are correct, 
the ^^ justification^^ claimed is unquestionaMy established; but 
you content yourself with an efibrt to meet and break the 
whole force of the truths set forth in the work, simply by a 
resort to the argumentum ad hominem. 

This kind of argument, you very prudently concede, is not 
always legitimate, much less conclusive, inasmuch as you care- 
fully admit that able, as well as true men, engaged in public 
affairs, are often inconsistent with themselves ; and hence, what 
such may have said on one occasion is not always a sufficient 
answer to what may be said by the same on another occasion, 
though directly in conflict with it. In this case, however, you 
rely entirely upon this mode of reasoning, and rest yourself 
satisfied by saying that the positions of the book are "fully 
answered" by myself in a speech made by me in the Georgia 
Secession Convention, in 18G1, which speech you give to your 
readers in the following words : 



182 THE KEVrEWERS REVIEWED. 

" This step (of secession) once taken, can never be recalled ; and all 
the baleful and withering consequences that must follow will rest on the 
convention for all coming fime. "When we and our posterity shall see our 
lovely South desolated by the demon of war, which this act of yours will 
inevitably invite and call forth ; when our green fields of waving harvest 
shall be trodden down by the murderous soldiery and fiery car of war 
sweeping over our land ; our temples of justice laid in ashes ; all the hor- 
rors and desolations of war upon us ; who but this convention will be 
held responsible for it ? and who but him who shall give his vote for this 
unwise and ill-timed measure, as I honestly think and believe, shall be 
held to strict account for this suicidal act by the present generation, and 
probably cursed and execrated by posterity for all coming time, for the 
Avdde and desolating ruin that will inevitably follow this act you now pro- 
pose to perpetrate? Pause, I entreat you, and consider for a moment 
what reasons you can give that will even satisfy yourselves in calmer 
moments — what reasons you can give to your fellow-sufferers in the 
calamity that it will bring upon us. "What reasons can you give to the 
nations of the earth to justify it? They will be the calm and deliberate 
judges in the case; and what cause or one overt act can you name or 
point, on which to rest the plea of justification ? What right has the 
North assailed ? What interest of the South has been invaded ? What 
justice has been denied ? and what claim founded in justice and right has 
been withheld ? Can either of you to-day name one governmental act of 
wrong, deliberately and purposely done by the Government of Washing- 
ton, of which the South has a right to complain ? I challenge the answer. 
While, on the other hand, let me show the facts (and believe me, gentle- 
men, I am not here the advocate of the North ; but I am here the friend, 
the firm friend and lover of the South and her institutions, and for this 
reason I speak thus plainly and faithfully for yours, mine, and every other 
man's interest, the words of trutli and soberness) of which I wish you to 
judge, and I will only state facts which are clear and undeniable, and 
which now stand as records authentic in the history of our country. 
When we of the South demanded the slave trade, or the importation of 
Africans for the cultivation of our lands, did they not yield the right for 
twenty years ? When we asked a three-fifths representation in Congress 
for our slaves, was it not granted ? When we asked and demanded the 
return of any fugitive from justice, or the recovery of those persons owing 
labor or allegiance, was it not incorporated in the Constitution, and again 
ratified and strengthened by the fugitive slave law of 1850 ? But do you 
reply that in many instances they have violated this compact, and have 
not been faithful to their engagements ? As individual and local commu- 
nities, they may have done so ; but not by the sanction of Government, 
for that has always been true to Southern interests. Again, gentlemen, 
look at another act; when we have asked that more territory should be 



MR. STEPHENS ON THE FORGED SPEECH. 183 

added, tliat we might spread the institution of slavery, have they not 
yielded to your demands in giving us Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, out 
of which four States liave been carved, and ample territory for four more 
to be added in due time ; if you, by this unwise and impolitic act do not 
destroy this hope, and, perhaps, by it lose all, and have your last slave 
wrenched from you by stern military rule, as South America and Mexico 
Avere; or hj the vfhdidlve decree of a universal emancipation, which may rea- 
sonably 1)6 expected to follow ? 

"Pause now while you can, gentlemen, and contemplate carefully and 
candidly these important items. Look at another necessary branch of 
government, and learn from stern statistical facts how matters stand in 
that department. I mean the mail and post-office privileges that we now 
enjoy under the General Government as it has been for years past. The 
expense for the transportation of the mail in free States was, by the report 
of the Postmaster-General for the year 1860, a little over $13,000,000, 
while the income was $19,000,000. But in the slave States the transpor- 
tation of the mail was $14,710,000, while the revenue from the same 
was $8,001,026, leaving a deficit of $0,704,974, to be supplied by the North 
for our accommodation, and without it we must have been entu'ely cut off 
from this most essential branch of Government. 

"Leaving out of view, for the present, the countless millions of dollars 
you must spend in a war with the North, with tens of thousands of your 
sons and brothers slain in battle, and offered up as sacrifices upon the 
altar of your ambition — and what for, we ask again? Is it for the over- 
throw of the American Government, established by our common ancestry, 
cemented and built uji by their sweat and blood, and founded on the 
broad principles of Right, Justice, and Humanity ? And, as such, I must 
declare here, as I have done before, and which has been repeated by the 
wisest and greatest of statesmen and patriots in this and other lands, that 
it is the best and freest Government — the most equal in its rights, the 
most just in its decisions, the most lenient in its measures, and the most 
aspiring in its principles, to elevate the race of men, that the sun of heaven 
ever shone upon. Now, for you to attempt to overthrow such a Govern- 
ment as this, under which we have lived for more than three-quarters of 
a century — in which we have gained our wealth, our standing as a nation, 
our domestic safety while the elements of peril are around us, with peace 
and tranquillity, accompanied with unbounded prosperity and rights un- 
assailed — is the heiglit of madness, folly, and wickedness, to which I can 
neither lend my sanction nor my vote." 

Kow, it is due to you and your readers, as well as myself, 
that I should make it distinctly and specially known to you 
and to them, as I hereby do, that I never made any such 
speech as that quoted by you, either in that Convention or 



184 THE KEVEEWEES EEYEEWED. 

anywliere else. It is forgery or gross fahncation from hegiiv- 
ning to end. 

You have, perhaps, been unwittingly di'awn into a mistake 
in this matter, as thousands of others have been imposed on in 
like matters pertaining to the war, as well as the true nature 
of the Government of the United States undffr the Federal 
Constitution, by taking for- granted, and accepting as true, what 
you and they have received from others, without any examina- 
tion, each for himself, into the truth of matters so surrepti- 
tiously served up and presented to public credulity. This 
speech, so attributed to me, was most flagitiously gotten up, 
and wickedly circulated by the perpetrators of the fraud, 
throughout the Northern States as a Republican campaign 
document in 1864, to mislead, as perhaps it did, thousands of 
voters in causing them to sustain those in power at Washing- 
ton, who were then waging the war under the specious pretence 
?cndi false cry of preserving the Union " with all the dignity, 
equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired," and 
which they never would have done if they had fully understood 
the real purposes, aims, and objects of the war on the part of 
those who were thus fraudulently misleading them, or of its 
ultimate results and consequences upon their own liberties, as 
well as those of the peoples of the Southern States. 

You are, perhaps, the more excusable for falling into this 
great error from the fact that this forged speech has actually 
found its way into many of the so-called histories of the war, 
even in those of the character of Mr. Lossing's celebrated work, 
and that of the learned Dr. Draper. It is upon just such unre- 
liable data and false dicta, however, you will please allow me to 
say, that all those so-called histories have been compiled, which 
attempt to justify the subjugation of the Southern States by the 
Northern States. When you yourself are better informed, per- 
haps, you may see the propriety of modifying your expression 
about Southern leaders. You will at least see that they are not 
so '-'' forgetfuV of '■^records^^ as you now imagine. They recol- 
lect not only " their own records^ but the records of others. 
You will also find that nothing is more characteristic of them 
than their habit of not relying upon false records either in the 



MR. STEPHENS ON" TIIE FORGED SPEECE. 185 

assertion of tlieir rights or for the justification of their acts. 
They remember, too, something more "of tlie ante-helium 
period than that there were AboHtionists in the ISTorth," They 
have a lively recollection not only of the fact that there were 
Revolutionists there bearing the cognomen of Abolitionists, but 
also of the fact that these Revolutionists got control of the 
Legislatures of a majority of the Northern States ; which Legis- 
latures, under their factious control and disloyal machinations, 
openly repudiated that clause in the Federal Constitution with- 
out which it is well known that Compact would never have 
been entered into. They know full well that the records — the 
true and imperishable records — which constitute the basis of 
every true history of this country established the fact, beyond 
the power of successful assault, that the Government of the 
United States is a government "o/* States and for States^ 
Moreover, that the Constitution is a Compact between States, 
and that this Compact was wantonly and avowedly broken by 
these Northern States under the lead of these same Revolution- 
ists, whose aims and objects were and are Consolidation and 
Empire ! It is up(5n the genuine and unmutilated records of 
the country Southern men stand, and with full confidence 
appeal to the enlightened judgment of mankind, now and for- 
ever, for the complete justification of their course and the 
righteousness of their cause. These records are exhibited in 
the volumes referred to, and the world is challenged, either to 
deny their authenticity or gainsay the conclusions therein drawn 
from them. Until one or the other, or both, of these is success- 
fully done, this justification must be acknowledged to be com- 
plete for all time to come. 

If you had carefully studied the work you were reviewing, 
you would have seen that this very speech quoted by you, as a 
part of my '■^ honorahle record^'' is noticed in volume 1st, page 
23, and there exposed as & forgery. On page 305, volume 2d, 
you would also have seen what was really and in truth said by 
me in the Georgia Convention upon the subject of secession. 
That speech is the true record in this mattei', which I neither 
forget nor ignore, and which it is proper your readers should 
see, and compare with the false one now in their hands. Its 



186 ' THE EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

leading points on tlie subject you essayed to quote me upon., 
as published in tbe papers of tlie day, are set forth in these 
words : 

" Mr. President : It is well known that my judgment is against Seces- 
sion for existing causes. I have not lost hope of securing our rights in 
the Union and under the Constitution, My judgment on this point is as 
unshaken as it was when the Convention was called. I do not now intend 
to go into any arguments on the subject. No good could be eflected by 
it. That was fully considered in the late canvass; and I doubt not every 
delegate's mind is made up on the question. I have thought, and still 
think, that we should not take this extreme stej) before some positive 
aggression upon our rights by the General Government, which may never 
occur; or until we fail, after effort made, to get a faithful performance of 
their Constitutional obligations, on the part of those Confederate States 
which now stand so derelict in their plighted faith. I have been, and am 
still, opposed to Secession as a remedy against anticipated aggressions on 
the part of the Federal Executive, or Congress, I have held, and do now 
hold, that the point of resistance should be the point of aggression, 

" Pardon me, Mr. President, for trespassing on your time but for a 
moment longer, I have ever believed, and do now believe, that it is to 
the interest of all the States to be and remain united under the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, with a faithful performance by each of all its 
Constitutional obligations. If the Union could be maintained on this 
basis, and on these principles, I think it would be the best for the security, 
the liberty, happiness, and common prosperity of all, I do further feel 
confident, if Georgia would now stand firm, and unite with the "Border 
States," as they are called, in an effort to obtain a redress of these griev- 
ances on the part of some of their Northern Confederates, whereof they 
have such just cause to complain, that complete success would attend their 
efforts; our just and reasonable demands would be granted. In this opin- 
ion I may be mistaken ; but I feel almost as confident of it as I do of my 
existence. Hence, if upon this test vote, which I trust will be made upon 
the motion now pending, to refer both the propositions before us to a 
committee of twenty-one, a majority shall vote to commit them, then I 
shall do all I can to perfect the plan of united Southern cooperation, sub- 
mitted by the honorable delegate from Jefferson, and put it in such a 
shape as will, in the opinion of the Convention, best secure its object. 
That object, as I understand it, does not look to Secession by the sixteenth 
of February, or by the fourth of March, if redress should not be obtained 
by that time. In my opinion, it cannot be obtained by the IGth of Febru- 
ary, or even by tlie 4th of March. But by the 16th of February we can 
see whether the Border States and other non-Seceding Southern States 
will respond to our call for the proposed Congress or Convention at 
Atlanta. If they do, as I trust they may, then that body, so composed 



ME. STEPHENS ON THE FORGED SPEECH. 187 

of representatives, or delegates, or commissioners as contemplated, from 
the whole of the Slaveholding States, could, and would, I doubt not, 
adopt either our plan or some other, which would fully secure our rights 
with ample guarantees, and thus preserve and maintain the ultimate peace 
and union of the States. Whatever plan of peaceful adjustment might 
be adopted by such a Congress, I feel confident would be acceded to by the 
people of every Northern State. This would not be done in a month, or 
two months, or perhaps short of twelve months, or even longer. Time 
would necessarily have to be allowed for a consideration of the questions 
submitted to the people of the Northern States, and for their deliberate 
action on them in view of all their interests, present and future. How 
long a time should be allowed, would be a proper question for that Con- 
gress to determine. Meanwhile, this Convention could continue its exist- 
ence by adjourning over to hear and decide upon the ultimate result of 
this patriotic eflFort. 

"My judgment, as is well known, is against the policy of immediate 
Secession for any existing causes. It cannot receive the sanction of my 
vote ; but if the judgment of a majority of this Convention, embodying, 
as it does, the Sovereignty of Georgia, be against mine ; if a majority of 
the delegates in this Convention shall, by their votes, dissolve the Com- 
pact of Union which has connected her so long with her Confederate 
States, and to which I have been so ardently attached, and have made 
such efforts to continue and perpetuate upon the principles on which it 
was founded, I shall bow in submission to that decision." 

Your readers, as well as yourself, I tliink will be constrained, 
whether reluctantly or not, to come to the conclusion, if the 
positions maintained in the "two volumes" under considera- 
tion are to be "fully answered" or can be "entirely demol- 
ished " by weapons from my own armory, very different mate- 
rials from any thing in this speech, or any thing really said by 
me in that Convention will have to be brought forward for the 
purpose. I think, also, that an intelligent public in this day, 
as well as in all future days, will require a different sort of 
argument than any thing to be found in this speech to upset 
those positions of the work -wlieroh j co)nj)Iete justification is not 
only claimed, but established, for what the Southern States did 
in the late war for the maintenance of the great principle of 
the Sovereign Eight of Local Self-Government by the people 
of the several States of this continent, and which lies at the 
foundation of the whole fabric of the American Federative 
System for the establishment and perpetuation of Free Institu- 
tions by neighboring States. Alexander H. SiErnENS. 



AETICLE IX. 

REPLY OF MB. STEPHENS TO MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AKERMAIP8 
DENUNCIATIONS OF TEE WORE. 

Liberty Hall, ) 

Crawfordville, Ga., September 21, ISTO. \ 

To the Editor of the Constitutionalist, Augusta, Georgia : 

Deae See: — You will, I trust, allow me tlie use of your 
columns to take sucli notice of two speeclies recently made by 
Hon. Amos T. Akerman, Attorney-General of tlie United States, 
as I think due to myself, due to him, and due to some, at least, 
of the very grave matters referred to by him in both. 

In the first of these speeches, made at Washington City, 1 
am directly charged and accused by him with having promul- 
gated doctrines which he characterizes as '■'• j^emicious^'^ and 
which he says " imcst he suppressed^ 

In the other of these speeches, delivered at Atlanta, Georgia, 
while my name is omitted ; yet his oflScial denunications, in 
like spirit, are chiefly directed against the same political heresies, 
according to his standard. 

These dangerous and "pernicious doctrines" he is pleased 
to say, are to be found in the two volumes published by me 
upon the " Late War between the States." 

This qxiasi public arraignment by the Attorney-General of 
the United States, and would-be, perhaps, " Crown Officer" of 
a firmly established Empire, I am by no means disposed to 
evade ; and, therefore, ask the favor, through the medium of the 
Constitutionalist, to enter a traverse, and to make known to 
him and to the world, that I hold myself in readiness to meet 
him, or any body else, upon the merits of his " Bill of Informa- 
tion," thus filed ; and without any technical exceptions on my 



MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 189 

part, as to the informality in wliicli it has been brought for- 
ward. 

The only tribunal I desire is the bar of an enlightened public 
opinion. The only arena I wish, for the settlement of all the 
questions involved, is the forum of reason ; where no weapons 
or force are to be used, but the power of truth and logic. So 
armed on such a field, I do not shrink from the fullest investiga- 
tion of all matters discussed in the work, to which he alludes, 
nor from the judgment which may be rendered upon them, 
after such a hearing, by the intelligent and unbiased of the pres- 
ent or future generations. 

What, then, are the errors in fact or argument in either of 
the volumes referred to, which, in the opinion of this high officer, 
are so dangerous and ^^ pernicious " — so j)oisonous and death- 
producing — as that they ought not to be thus inquired into, or 
even tolerated by discussion, but ought to be summarily and 
arbitrarily " suppressed ?'''' 

1st. Is it an erroneous, and '•'■pernicious doctrine " to main- 
tain, as the book does, that the United States constitute, not a 
single Republic, but a Federal Republic ; and that the Union^ 
about which Mr. Attorney-General says so much, is a Federal 
Union — a Union of separate, distinct States, each State of the 
Union being a perfect State, as known in Public Law % 

2d. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the 
book does, that these States, upon entering into this Union, 
were recognized by themselves, as well as other powers, as 
separate, independent. Sovereign States ? 

3d. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the book 
does, that the Constitution of 1787 is the basis of the present 
Union ; and that it was formed hy the States in their sovereign 
character, and for them in their sovereign character : or, in 
other words, that it is a Constitution " made by States and for 
States ; " and that the Sovereignty of the States was not parted 
with by them in its ratification ? 

4th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the 
book does, that the Federal Government is entirely Conventional 
in its character — that it was created by the States solely with 
a view to the better regulation of their inter-State and foreign 



190 THE EE7IEWEES REVIEWED. 

affairs, and tlie greater security of their perpetual existence as 
Sovereign States, by their mutual pledge and guaranty to this 
end — and that the Federal Government, so created, possesses 
no inherent powers whatever- — that all the powers it rightfully 
holds, or can rightfully exercise, are held from the States, and 
from them by delegation only ? 

oth. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the book 
does, that all the powers, so held by this Federal or Conven- 
tional Government, are particularly enumerated and limited in 
the Constitution ; and that the exercise of any power outside 
of these limitations is nothing but a usurpation, and should be 
set aside by the courts as a nullity ? 

6th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the 
book does, that the Constitution of the United States, so made, 
was a CoinjMct letween the States ratifying it — the States being 
the parties to it; and that it is binding 'between them, as all 
other like Compacts by the laws of nations % 

7th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the 
book does, that all delegated powers by Sovereign States can, 
by the laws of nations, be rightfully resumed by the party dele- 
gating them, when the purposes for which they were delegated 
are not attained ? 

8th. Is it an error in fact to assert, as the book does, that 
quite a number of the Northern States of the Union, before the 
Secession of any of its Southern members, (under the influence 
of that faithless faction which now rules this country by fraud 
and usurpation,) did openly and confessedly refuse to perform 
their covenanted obligations under a clause of the Constitution, 
without which that Compact never would have been agreed to, 
or the Union, under it, entered into by the Southern States % 

9th. Is it an error in fact to state, as the book does, that the 
present Chief-Justice Chase fully admitted this breach of faith 
on the part of these Northern States ; and openly declared in 
the Peace Congress in February, 18G1, that they never would 
perform these admitted obligations on their part % 

10th. Is it an error in fact to maintain, as the book does, 
that no one of the Southern States which seceded or attempted 
to secede from the Union, because of this breach of faith, on the 



MR. STEPHENS' REPLY TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 191 

part of their Confederates, was ever untrue to her covenants in 
the Compact of Union ? 

11th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine to maintain, as the 
book does, that this open and confessed breach of faith on the 
part of their Northern Confederates, according to the hiws of all 
nations, whether savage or civilized, completely absolved the 
Southern States from their obligations under the Comj)act, and 
fully justified their withdrawal ? 

12th. Is it an error in fact to maintain, as the book docs, 
that the Covenant-Constitution-breaking States did afterwards 
hold, that the Seceding States were still bound to perform their 
part of the Compact, notwithstanding their own acknowledged 
breach of faith, and that they went to war against them to com- 
pel them to remain in the Union, and discharge their obliga- 
tions under the Constitution ? 

IStli. Is it an error in fact or doctrine, to maintain, as the 
book does, that the war, thus inaugurated, was a " War between 
States," and in no proper or just sense a Rebellion or Civil 
War? 

11th. Is it an error in fact to maintain, as the book does, 
that the only pretext on the part of the ISTorthern States, for 
waging this war, thus inaugurated between the States, was " the 
preservation of the Union of the States, with all the dignity, 
equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired ? " 

15th. Is it an error in fact to maintain, as the book does, that 
when the Seceding States abandoned their struggle for a sepa- 
ration, and agreed to the terms of capitulation, which was sub- 
stantially an acquiescence, so far as armed resistance was con- 
cerned, in the declaration upon which the war was waged against 
them; the other States, the Covenant-breakers themselves — 
under the rale of the same revolutionary faction — after the 
sacrifice of hundred of thousands of lives and thousands of mil- 
lions of dollars, changed their position in Congress, and said 
that they could not safely permit that to be do]ie for which they 
had waged the war — that they could not safely allow a restora- 
tion of the Union of the States under the Constitution for which 
they had shed so much blood and expended so much treasure ! 
But that these acquiescing States should be shorn of their 



192 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

" dignity, equality and rights " by a process of " Keconstruction " 
according to their liking, though outside of the Constitution, 
before being allowed representation in the Congress of the 
States ? 

10th. Is it an error in fact or doctrine, on the review of this 
conduct, to ask, as the book does, " Is there to be found in the 
annals of mankind a parallel of such imblushing, double-faced, 
insolent, and inftinious iniquity ? " 

These, Mr. Editor, are a few of the positions and doctrines 
maintained in the two volumes referred to by Mr. Attorney- 
General ; and if they, founded, as they are, upon indisputable 
facts, set forth irrefutable truths, to what or whom, let me ask 
him and the world, is their promulgation either dangerous or 
^^ pernicious .^ " Is it to the cause of public liberty, or to the 
true friends of the institutions of our ancestors, or only to the 
policy and secret designs of those who are aiming at their over- 
throw and subver^on ? 

Mr. Attorney-General in his Bill of Information makes very 
few distinct specifications touching the ^^;pernicious " doctrines 
of the two volumes which, he says, " must he sujppressedP Two 
only of these are deemed worthy of notice at this time. 

The first is, that I have asserted that " the Keconstruction 
measures were monstrous, and pronounced that all the Govern- 
ment had done for four years was monstrous, and threatened 
the liberties of the people." 

In answer to this I have simply to say, that if the foregoing 
positions maintained in the book are unassailable, is it not un- 
deniably true that the whole of " these Reconstruction meas- 
ures," with all their concomitants, are not only monstrous out- 
rages^ but most deadly hlows directed at the very mtals of the 
Constitution, as well as the liberties of the people ? 

The other of these specifications is, that I have attempted 
to show that " Marshall," and others named by him, " were 
wrong, and that Calhoun was right " in his views of the Consti- 
tution. 

In answer to this charge it is only necessary to refer to the 
book itself, which Mr. Attorney-General may very well wish to 
have suppressed, if for no other object than to shield himself 



MK. STEPHENS' EEPLY TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 193 

from the exposure of having made a very mifair statement, not 
to say palpahle misrepresentation. In the book no opinion of 
Marshall is assailed ; but, on the contrary, some of the most 
important positions in it — those doubtless deemed by the 
would-be "Crown Officer," most '-'- jpernicious'''' to his own 
views, aims, and objects — are not only fortified but incontest- 
ably established by the authority of this eminent Chief-Justice 
of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

It was he who announced from the Bench of that Court the 
most "pernicious doctrine," that the States composing this 
Union at the time, formed their present Constitution as Sover- 
eign States. 

It was he who held and proclaimed from the same Bench, that 
all the Legislative powers of the Congress of States, under the 
Constitution, depended upon the will of a majority of the States. 

It was he who held in the Convention of Yirginia that rati- 
fied the Constitution, that the powers conferred by that instru- 
ment could be rightly resumed by those who conferred them. 

This, perhaps, is the most '■^ ])ermciou8^^ of all the doctrines 
set forth in the book, which Mr. Attorney-General is so anxious 
to have '■^ suppressed^ And perhaps, moreover, the true solu- 
tion of his unqualified denunciation of the whole work is, that 
the array of facts presented in the two volumes, and the irresist- 
ible conclusions established by them, are so '■'■ permcioiis " to the 
schemes of the would-be " Crown Officer " and his co-workers 
in the erection of a Centralized Empire over the ruins of the 
principles of that wonderful Federal Union, established by the 
" Fathers," that they cannot be tolerated by them ; and hence 
the official mandate, that the doctrines therein set forth " must 
he suppressed!^'' Potent words these, and of most ominous 
significance, coming from the quarter they do ! They express 
the unmistakable language of tyrannical men in power in all 
ages and countries, when they feel the force of truths which are 
indeed dangerous and most '''■pernicious " to their own guilty 
acts of usurpation upon the rights of States, as well as the 
liberties of outraged peoples ! This language from the present 
Attorney-General smacks strongly of like Cabinet anathemas 
of the ISTationalists, Centralists, and Consolidationists of this 
13 



194 THE REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

country in lY98-'99 which ended in the ever-memorable Alien 
and Sedition " laws, so called" of that period. 

The doctrine of the advocates of Constitutional Liberty under 
our Federative System at that day, as promulgated, not by Mr. 
Calhoun, as Mr, Attorney-General most adroitly attempts to 
make the people believe, but by Mr. Jefferson and his associates, 
was, that these acts of usurpation were not laivs but nullities. 

The doctrines inculated in the two volumes referred to, Mr. 
Attorney-General well knows, are the doctrines of Mr. Jefferson 
— the great apostle of the American Federative system, for the 
maintenance and preservation of free institutions by neighbor- 
ing States. They are the doctrines which in 1798-99 were, as 
now, considered exceedingly ^^pernioious " to their schemes by 
all the enemies of these institutions. By the earnest promul- 
gation of these doctrines, and a firm maintenance of them, at 
the polls, by the peoples of the several States of this Union, the 
rights of the States, as well as their own, were rescued from the 
hands of usurpers at that time ; and on a like promulgation and 
maintenance of the same doctrines at this time, rests the only 
sure hope of the future rescue and preservation of the same 
rights and liberties from the hands of the usurpers who now 
bear sway. One of the most important as well as saving of the 
principles of these doctrines is that no danger need ever be 
feared in a free country from any error oi opinion or doctrine 
however great, " Vv'here reason is left free to combat it." 

This Cabinet ukase of Mr. Attorney-General shows nothing- 
more clearly than the ^jfowc?' o/* ^/w truths promulgated in the 
tv,'o volumes thus denounced. He and his associates know and 
feel, that, by nothing short of a suppression of these truths di- 
rectly or indirectly, and the obliteration, if possible, of all the 
great focts of our history, can they bring the public mind to 
receive the doctrine attempted to be instilled . by him in his 
Atlanta speech; which amounts to this: that the States of this 
Union have no higher position in the scale of existence than 
mere legal corporations. 

Shades of Aines, Samuel Adams, Parsons, Ellsworth, Han- 
cock, Madison, Hamilton, Marshall, Jackson, Jefferson, and 
"Washington ! 



ME. STEPHENS' REPLY TO ATTOENEY-GENEEAL. 195 

I will not say that sucli a doctrine ought to be suppressed ; 
but with all the respect for high official position which I can 
command, I will say, that the Attorney-General of the United 
States, in putting forth such sentiments ought to have blushed ; 
if not for his own reputation, at least, from a proper sense of 
reverence for the memories of the illustrious dead ! 

The Union of these States, nothing but a Union of a sort 
of corporations to be fashioned, moulded, controlled, and shorn 
of their rights by and at the will of the Central Government ! 

This " Confederacy " of States, as Marshall styled it on the 
Bench of the Supreme Court — 'this " Confederated Republic," 
as Washington styled it in his message to the Senate — this 
" Union of Sovereign Members," as Jackson spohe of it in his 
Inaugural Address, according to the teachings of the present 
Attorney-General, is nothing but an aggregation of corpora- 
tions ! Bare creatures of municipal law ! This, in substance, 
is my understanding of Jus most «^5^V?^o^w?y-inculcated Im- 
perializing doctrine. 

If by the sujjjyression of truth, this doctrine can be established, 
then, indeed, will be consummated that most lamentable result 
which Hamilton thought need never be feared, even by the 
most vigilant and zealous guardians of popular rights, when he 
declared in the Convention of ]^ew York, which ratified the 
Constitution, that " The States can never lose their Powers till 
the whole iJeo])le of America are voUbed of tJieir Liberties.'''' 
Yours, most respectfully, 

Alexander H. Stephens. 



AKTICLE X. 

I. — ^Replt of Mk. Stephens to Ckiticism of the Atlanta 
(Ga.) "New Eka." 

Liberty Hall, ) 

Crawfordtille, Ga., Nov. 19, 1870. ) 

To the Editor of the New Era, Atlanta, Ga. : 

Dear Sm: — In the weekly issue of your paper of the 16th 
inst. is an editorial article (the same having also appeared in 
the daily issue of the lltli inst.) headed " Hon. Alexander H. 
Stephens and the Constitutional Right of Secession," which 
contains matter deserving notice from me. 

This article, as it stands, is well calculated to cause those of 
your readers, who are not conversant with the whole subject, 
to form very erroneous conclusions both in reference to myself, 
and in reference to what you are pleased to consider the " per- 
nicious " doctrines I have maintained in the work referred to 
by you in the same article, in relation to the true nature and 
character of the Government of the United States. 

You will, therefore, I trust, allow me the use of your col- 
umns to set the issues you make rightly before that portion of 
the public to whom your article was addressed. Be assured, 
my whole object in this communication, as well as whatever 
else I may have written on the subject, is the establishment of 
truth / and truth, in my judgment, is pernicious to nothing but 
error, in the science of government, as well as in all other mat- 
ters of human investigation, whether political, ethical, or mathe- 
matical. In the article referred to you say : 

" Mr. Stephens has written two large octavo volumes, entitled 'The 
"War Between the States,' in vindication of the doctrine of ultimate Local 
Allegiance or State Sovereignty, and consequently in justification of the 
act of Secession, as exercised by the Georgia Democracy in 1861. That 



REPLY TO "NEW ERA." 197 

Mr. Stephens should have written such a book, under the circumstances 
which he did, having for its object the advocacy of a theory which 
experience has demonstrated to be not only impracticable, but likewise 
destructive of the peace of society, surprised none more than it did many 
of his earliest and best friends in Georgia. 

" The book can do no possible good. Its direct tendency is, and will 
be, to stimulate a reorganization of a party hostile to the Government." 

To this, allow me, in the outset, to say that it was not the 
object of the work alluded to, to set up, advance, or advocate 
any mere theory as to the nature or character of the Federal 
government under the Union of the States as established by 
the Constitution. This is not a proper subject for theory or 
speculation of any sort. It is eminently a question of facts. 
My object was simply to set forth truthfully the indisjmiable 
facts of history upon which it rests ; with the irresistible con- 
clusions logically flowing from them. This was the object of 
the work, and has this been done, should be the only inquiry 
of a mind wedded to truth. K it has, why should any one of 
my early and best friends in Georgia, or elsewhere, be surprised 
at my course ? Is there any thing in my whole life which covdd 
have caused them to expect any other % K it has not, then I 
grant my course in this particular ought to be a cause of sur- 
prise to all who know me, and what I have adduced as facts 
ought to be exposed as grave errors and mischievous imposi- 
tions. This no one in the United States has yet attempted or 
ventured to do, so far as I am aware. The real question, there- 
fore, is not whether experience has demonstrated any " theory " 
of mine to be " impracticahle^'' but whether experience has de- 
monstrated that the Government, as it was made and instituted 
by the Fathers, was "not only impracticable but likewise de- 
structive of the peace of society." Is it true, then, that the 
matchless system of government instituted by our ancestors 
was " not only imjpracticable but destructive of the peace of so- 
ciety % " This is, certainly, your position if \\\q facts and truths 
of our history be as they are set forth in the book referred to, 
which you virtually admit by not venturing to gainsay or deny 
them. Far be it from me to entertain any such idea of the 
majestic and renowned workmanship of the statesmen of 1787, 
who framed the present Constitution for the government of the 



198 EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

several sovereign States, whicli miglit enter into a union under 
it, with a view to the establishment of justice, the preservation 
of domestic tranquility, and the promotion of their joint gen- 
eral welfare, as well as for the security of the blessings of lib- 
erty to themselves and to their posterity. 

Of this novel and wonderful frame-work Lord Brougham, 
in his Political Philosophy, has well said : (Italics mine.) 

" It is not at all a refinement tliat a Federal Union sliould be formed ; 
that is the natural result of men's joint operations in a very rude state of 
society. But the regulation of such a Union upon preestablished priuci- 
ples, the formation of a system of government and legislation in which 
the different subjects shall be not indioiduals, but States, the application of 
legislative principles to such a iodi/ of States, and devising means for 
keeping its integrity as a Federacy while the rights and powers of the in- 
dividual States are maintained entire, is the very greatest refinement in 
social policy to which any state of circumstances has ever given rise, or to 
which any age has ever given birth ! " 

May not the disturbance "of the peace of society" to 
which you refer — (the late most lamentable war) — have arisen 
rather from an error, on the part of those who maugurated it, 
as to the true nature and extent of the powers confided to 
them than from any defect in the frame-work of the Govern- 
ment itself, l^ay, is not this demonstrated in the book ? The 
great question discussed in the " two large octavo volumes " is, 
who was in the right and who was in the wrong in this recent 
terrible conflict. If it is clearly shown therein, that the re- 
sponsibility of this disturbance " of the peace of society " rests 
with all its weight upon those who wrongfully claimed and ex- 
ercised unauthorized power, then experience in this instance 
has demonstrated nothing but that even written Constitutions 
are not always proof against the usurpations of rulers. This 
experience has by no means demonstrated that the institutions 
of our Fathers were not altogether practicable, wise, just, right, 
and embodying " the very greatest refinement in social policy" 
to which any age has ever given birth ; looking to the best in- 
terest, peace, safety, security, liberty, and happiness of man- 
kind. 

But you say that the facts and truths established in the book 
(for as before stated, you must be considered as admitting them 



REPLY TO "NEW ERA." 199 

to be correct, as you do not assail them) will have a " direct 
tendency " " to stimulate a reorganization of a party hostile to 
the Government." 

In this you will allow me to say, that either you or I great- 
ly err in judgment. The direct tendency of these truths, as 
was and is one of the objects of their promulgation, will be the 
reorganization of a party in perfect harmony with the Govern- 
ment, animated with a thorough devotion to those principles 
upon which it was founded and by the maintenance of which 
alone its incalculable blessings can be perpetuated. The ten- 
dency will be the organization of a party JiostiU to nothing but 
those principles of mal-administration of government — those 
gross and palpable usurpations, from which all our late troubles 
with their ruinous results arose, and from which, if not aban- 
doned, like troubles, with even worse results, may be looked 
for in the future. The Government is one thing and the ad- 
ministration of it cpiite another. No system of Free Kepresen- 
tative Government can be long continued where the people do 
not understand its principles and cherish a patriotic devotion to 
them, with an inflexible virtue enlisted in their maintenance. 
The direct tendency of the truths presented in the "two vol- 
umes " to which you refer, will be to impart the requisite 
knowledge of our wonderful confederate system, and at the 
same time inspire a patriotic admiration of the beauty and 
gi*andeur of its structure, as well as zeal and integrity in its 
support and perpetuation. Individually, I have ever regarded 
it the wisest and best system of government for neighboring 
States ever instituted by man. No one ever was or could be 
more devoted to its principles than I have been and am. With 
me in all things political, this devotion controls every other 
consideration. Now, as heretofore, I can say on this point : 

" All thoughts, all passions, all delights, 
Whatever stirs this mortal frame ; 
All are but ministers of love 
To feed this sacred flame." 

So lar, therefore, from the tendency of the truths promul- 
gated by me, as to the nature and character of the Government, 
being to stimulate the organization of a party hostile to it, the 



200 REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

tendency will, in my judgment, be directly to the contrary ; 
that is, the tendency will be, throngh an enlightened and pa- 
triotic public sentiment, to bring the administration of the Gov- 
ernment back from its present usurpations, and restore it to its 
true pristine principles under which it was so prosperously and 
so happily conducted for nearly three-quarters of a century. 

So much by way of reply to your introductory remarks. I 
now wish to call the attention of your readers to that part of 
your article in which you attempt (it seems to me) to break the 
force of the great truths of our history as set forth in the work, 
not by any direct attack upon them, or the facts upon which 
they rest, but by giving out that they are inconsistent with 
what I had maintained on a former occasion. On this line you 
say : 

" That Mr. Stephens should have thus become the champion of the 
party of Destruction is most remarkable. It clearly implies either a radi- 
cal change in his political views since 18G0, or it raises a presumption 
against his sincerity. The latter is hardly admissible. We have too high 
an opinion of Mr. Stephens as a man, to charge him with insincerity. 
And yet the alternative of fickleness, while it is inevitable, is very little 
less complimentary. His calm and statesmanlike speech of November 
14th, 1860, delivered before the Georgia Legislature at Milledgeville, and 
which was generally copied by the press all over the United States, is in 
strange contrast with the pernicious and revolutionary teachings in his 
book." 

You go on further to say : 

" In that speech Mr. Stephens discusses the merits of Secession in the 
following calm and powerful language : 

" ' T\\c first question that presents itself is, Shall the people of the South 
secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr, Lincoln to 
the Presidency of the United States ? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, 
candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think they ought. In my judg- 
ment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high oflice, 
is sufficient cause for any State to separate from the Union. It ought to 
stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To 
make a point of resistance to tlie Government, to withdraw from it be- 
cause a man has been constitutionally elected, puts us in the wrong. We 
are pledged to maintain the Constitution. Many of us have sworn to sup- 
port it. Can we, therefore, for the mere election of a man to the Presi- 
dency — and that, too, in accordance with the prescribed form of the Con- 
stitution — make a point of resistance to the Government ioithout becoming 
the hreaJiCrs of that sacred instrument ourselves ii/ withdrawing ourselves from 
it ? Would we not be ia the wrong ? Whatever fate is to befall this 



REPLY TO "KEW ERA." 201 

country, let it never be laid to the charge of the people of the South, and 
; especially to the people of Georgia, that avc were untrue to our national en- 
gagements. . . . \yc went into the election with this people. The result 
;'•^'•Was different from what we Avishcd; but the election has been constitu- 
tionally held. Were we to make a point of resistance to the Government, 
and go out of the Union on that account, the record would be made up 
hereafter against us.' 

"We have italicized the words in the above to which attention is es- 
pecially directed. It will be observed that Mr, Stepliens here assumes 
that, because the people of Georgia stood 'pledged to maintain the Con- 
stitution,' therefore they ought not to secede ; and that they could not do 
so without ' becoming the breakers of that sacred instrument.' Where, 
then, is the Constitutional 'right' of Secession, so insidiously taught in 
' The War Between the States ? ' Where, then, is the infallible truth of the 
proposition that, since the ultimate allegiance of the citizen is due the 
State, as against the Federal Government, the citizen may make resistance 
■ to the General Government, under the sanction of State authority, without 
violating or ' breaking ' the Federal .Constitution ? The truth is, Mr. Ste- 
phens of 1868 and 1870 reverses Mr. Stephens of 1860 and 1861." 

In response to this part of your article, for the information 
of your readers, it is proper to remind you that you have only 
quoted, not exactly, but substantially correct — (see Constitu- 
tional View, 2d vol., page 280), a part of the speech to which 
you refer, and that part in which I did maintain that secession, 
in my judgment, would not be justified even in the exercise of 
a sovereign not " constitutional " right, as you seem to suppose, 
upon the bare election to the office of President of any man, 
however inimical he might be to the principles of the govern- 
ment of the United States. But while in that part of the 
speech I did maintain that no State, in my judgment, would be 
justified in the exercise of her sovereign right in withdrawing 
from the Union, because of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the 
Presidency, yet I did not thereby assume, or maintain that no 
State could rightfully exercise her sovereign powers in with- 
drawing from the Union for any cause whatever. Far indeed 
was any such position from any thing said in that speech. 

This is not a matter of disputation about words. The speech 

itself, from which you quoted, settles all doubts that might arise 

from isolated sentences or parts. After stating most earnestly 

and distinctly, that I did not consider the election of Mr. Lin- 

' 'y- coin a sufficient cause to justify secession, I went into the con- 



202 EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

sideration of other causes, which were of a different character, 
and, though I did not think it either expedient, or wise, or po- 
litic, to secede for any of them under the circumstances existing 
at the time, yet I did most fully declare my opinion to he, that 
secession for these causes would be justified if Georgia in her 
sovereign capacity should determine to exercise her sovereign 
right to withdraw. The justification of the act, however, did 
not render the exercise of the power, at the time and under the 
circumstances, either judicious or expedient in my judgment. 
Hence my earnest appeal in that speech after the full consider- 
ation of all the causes of complaint, as well those which would 
justify as those which would not, against the exercise, at that 
time, of the great sovereign right of secession for any of them. 
My opposition to secession for those other causes was not as to 
the Tiglit, hut the ])olicy^ of the measure. In this appeal, among 
other things, I said what follows : 

" But it is said Mr. Lincoln's policy and principles are against the 
Constitution, and that if he carries them out it Tvill be destructive of our 
rights. Let us not anticipate the threatened evil. If he violates the Con- 
stitution, then will come our time to act. ... I do not anticipate that Mr. 
Lincoln will do any thing to jeopard our safety or security, whatever may 
be his spirit to do it ; for he is bound by the Constitutional checks which 
are thrown around him, which at this time render him powerless to do 
any great mischief. This shows the wisdom of our system. The Presi- 
dent of the United States is no Emperor — no Dictator. He is clothed 
with no absolute power. 

" Now upon another point, and that the most difficult, and deserving 
your most serious consideration, I will speak. What is the course which 
this State should pursue toward those Northern States, which, by their 
legislative acts, have attempted to nullify the fugitive slave law ? 

" Northern States, on entering into the Federal Compact^ pledged to 
surrender such fugitives ; and it is in disregard of their Constitutional 
obligations that they have passed laws which even tend to hinder or in- 
hibit the fulfilment of that obligation. They have violated their plighted 
faith. What ought we to do in view of this? That is the question. 
What is to be done ? By the laic of nations^ you tcould hare a right to de- 
mand the carrying out of this article of cu/reement, and I do not see that it 
should 1)6 otherwise with respect to the States of this Union. . , . The States 
of this Union stand upon the same footing with foreign nations in this re- 
spect. 

" Now, then, my recommendation to you would be this : In view of all 



REPLY TO "NEW ERA." 203 

these questions of diflSculty, let a Convention of tlie people of Georgia be 
called, to -wliich tbey all may be referred. Let the soverekjuty of the peo- 
ple speak. Some thiuk the election of Mr. Lincoln is cause sufficient to 
dissolve the Union. Some think those other grievances are sufficient to 
justify the same, and that the Legislature has power thus to act, and 
ought thus to act. I have no hesitancy in saying that the Legislature is 
not the proper body to sever our Federal relations, if that necessity sliould 
arise. ... I do think, therefore, that it would be best, before going to 
extreme measures with our Confederate States, to make the presentation of 
our demands, to appeal to their reason and judgment to give us our 
rights. . . . At least, let these offending and derelict States know what your 
grievances are, and if they refuse, as I said, to give us our rights under 
the Constitution, I should be willing, as a last resort, to sever our ties with 
them. 

" My opinion is, that if this course be pursued, and they are informed 
of the consequences of refusal, these States will recede, Avill repeal their 
nullifying acts ; l)ut if they should not, then let the consequences he with them, 
and the responsibility of the consequences rest with them.'''' 

From these extracts (parts of wliicli I have italicized) it 
most clearly appears that at the very time I urged that the bare 
election of any man to the Presidency, however inimical his 
principles might be to the Constitution, was not, in my judg- 
ment, a sufficient cause to justify the withdrawal of a State from 
the Union ; I also fully admitted that for other causes, and 
other causes then existing, if not removed, the Southern States 
would be fully justified in withdrawing, if they should so de- 
termine to do in their sovereign capacity. These causes, as is 
well known, were not removed. It was for these causes the 
Southern States did secede or attempt to secede. 

When I maintained in that part of the speech, which you 
quoted, that because the State of Georgia " was pledged to sup- 
port the Constitution," she, therefore, in my judgment, ought 
not to secede on account of Mr. Lincoln's election, or in antici- 
pation merely of an act of aggression on his part, I did not 
thereby assume or assert that she could not, in my judgment, 
rightfully secede for the other causes. On the contrary, it is 
clearly stated, that it would be her sovereign right to do so if 
she saw fit. It is true my judgment against the policy of ex- 
ercising the right for any of the then existing causes, without 
further efforts for their removal, was most earnestly urged ; but 



204 EEVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

the right to withdraw for these other causes was not questioned 
by me in any part of that speech. 

'Naj, more, I expressly declared that my allegiance would 
be yielded to the sovereignly-expressed will of Georgia, what- 
ever course she might take. 

There is certainly no inconsistency between the principles 
maintained on this whole subject in the speech alluded to, and 
those maintained in the " two volumes " to which you refer. 
I^Tor is there any inconsistency between the principles of this 
speech in whole or in part ; and the great truths set forth in 
those volumes touching the nature and character of the govern- 
ment of the United States, which you deem so pernicious, de- 
structive, and revolutionary. 

Intelligent readers will, I think, require something more ef- 
fective to break the force of these truths than any inconsistency 
to be found between them and the principles advocated by me 
in 1860 ; and they will, moreover, require, I think, something 
of a very different character from any thing to be found in the 
speech made by me to which you have alluded — taken alto- 
gether as it should be — to show that " Mr. Stephens of 1868 and 
1870 reverses Mr. Stephens of 1860 and 1861." 

In this connection you will allow me to say, that whatever 
other demerits may properly be laid to my charge during a 
rather long political course, that of " "fickleness " on these ques- 
tions or inconsistency with myself on the subject of State sov- 
ereignty, and the proper relations between the States and the 
Federal Government under our Union, is not one of them. I 
have now before me a printed copy of the first political address 
ever made by me. It was delivered in this village on the 4th day 
of July, 1834, while I was a student of law, and before my ad- 
mission to the bar. For your own information, as well as that 
of your readers, on the point of my inconsistency and " fickle- 
ness," I submit for your and their consideration the following 
extracts, which are not less pertinent now than then : 

" The mind, therefore, at our annual festivals similar to the present, 
Bhould not, as is often tlie case, be permitted to be filled so much with re- 
joicings over the past, as engaged in earnest contemi^lations of the future. 
The warfare of Liberty is continual, and there is no time for the patriot 



REPLY TO "NEW EKA." 205 

to luxuriate on the past, or feast on the spoils of victory. The field is 
never to be quit — the post never deserted — but battle succeeds battle in a 
chain as various and as endless as the diversity of character and the suc- 
cession of generations. 

" With these remarks I submit to your attention, briefly, the consider- 
ation of a subject which I deem not as inappropriate to the object of our 
assembling ; one in which we all, as the friends of Liberty in general, and 
particularly as citizens of the United States, are deeply interested, and 
one which, in my opinion, involves principles pregnant with as momen- 
tous consequences as any which have ever agitated the public mind of the 
American people. I allude to the extent of the powers of the Federal 
Government, or the true relation between the Federal and State Govern- 
ments. There are those among us who contend for the ultimate suprema- 
cy of the former, while others for that of the latter. The struggle is one 
for power on one side, and right on the other. . . . Most essential, then, 
to its preservation in its primitive i>urity, should the principles of the 
Federal compact be thoroughly examined, and clearly understood by 
every one. 

" That I may be plain in establishing these important assumptions, I lay 
it down as an undeniable truth, this power was not vested in Congress at 
the first union of these States which resulted in the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, nor during the time which intervened between that period and 
the adoption of the articles of the Confederation. I lay it down also as 
a truth, that it was not conferred by the articles of the Confederation. 
Thus far my premises must be admitted by all, for the first article of the 
Confederation expressly declares the sovereignty or supremacy of the 
States severally. I proceed, then, likewise to assert that this Supreme 
Power is not conferred by the present Constitution. W^ere this also ad- 
mitted, there would be an end to the discussion. But here the issue is 
joined. Then to the proof. And in the first place, if the Constitution 
contains such grant of power, it must be impliefl, for it is not expressed. 

" But, say the advocates of a strong Government, there is no necessity 
for its being expressed ; that it is im^Mcd, and that it is implied from the 
nature and character of the Constitution, and the circumstances which 
gave rise to its formation. For, say they, the main object of the Consti- 
tution was to obviate and remedy evils which arose under the weak ad- 
ministration of the former Confederation from the want of this very 
power. They admit that anterior to the Constitution, Congress had not 
this power — that the States were separate and distinct sovereignties ; and 
they tell us that at that time our nation was in debt ; that our trade was 
languishing ; that our credit was lost ; that our character was dishonored ; 
that there was no remedy ; Congress enacted but the States disregarded ; 
there was no force binding the people, and finally, they tell us that it was 



206 REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

to check all these evils, and remedy this whole state of deranged affairs 
by binding the States to the decision of Congress, and, in a word, by de- 
priving them of their sovereign veto, that the present Constitution was 
formed, and therefore, though this be not all expressed, yet it must be im- 
plied from the very nature of things, etc. Now, that these evils did exist 
under the Confederation to a great extent, is admitted, and that many of 
them were remedied by the present Constitution is also admitted ; but the 
inference as to the origin or cause of these evils, and the nature of their 
remedy, is erroneous. They did not originate (according to the inference) 
from a want of superior force or power in Congress to bind the States, but 
from the limited number of subjects and objects of national policy 
upon which the States had permitted Congress to act, and their attempt- 
ing to exercise powers not granted. It is true our nation was in debt ; 
that our trade was languishing ; that our credit was lost, and that Con- 
gress enacted upon these subjects, and that the States disregarded those 
enactments. And why ? For the jDlainest reason in the world : Because 
Congress, the agent of the States, was meddling with matters and enact- 
ing upon subjects with which it never had been entrusted with sufficient 
and proper powers to do the business as it ought to be done, and not as 
the inference would imply, because there was a want of power to compel 
the States to comply with their solemn engagements. This want of jiower 
did exist, but the evils did not arise from that ; and so far from its being 
the main object of the new Constitution, this was not its object at all. It 
is true its object was to remedy the evils of the Confederation. But it 
was to have remedied them as they should have been remedied — 5?/ en- 
trusting more business to the care of the agent, or in other words, by permit- 
ting Congress to act upon more subjects which experience had shown the 
public convenience required. . . . This was the object of the Constitution. 
Tliis was what the Constitution effected. While the obligation on the 
part of the States as States to observe and obey an edict of Congress is 
the same now as before the adoption of the present Constitution. The 
Government has not changed its name even. Its powers were enlarged, 
but its character is the same ; and the relation between the States and this 
Government have been multiplied, but the nature of those relations is un- 
altered. The new Constitution is a compact between the sovereign States 
separately, as the old Confederation was ; and if this be so, and if the first 
article of the Confederation expressly declares that sovereignty or su- 
premacy is retained to the States — denying the right or power of Congress 
to coerce or compel the States, the parties to it, to obey its edicts — where 
is this right or power derived under this present Constitution ? Indeed, 
fellow-citizens, I am constrained to think that it is derived nowhere, and 
that it has its existence only in the breasts of the parasites of power who 
wish to overthrow the liberties of the people." 

These extracts, wliatever may be tliotiglit of the style or 



REJOINDER OF "KEW ERA." 207 

logic of tlie juvenile argument, will Buffice to show you and 
your readers, I tliink, at least, tliat " Mr. Stepliens," as early as 
1834r, as well as in 1860 and 1861, maintained substantially the 
same principles touching the nature and character of our Con- 
federate system of government, and the relation of the States 
to the Union under it, which he did in 1860, and does in 1870. 
If he ever performed an act, or nttercd a sentiment, inconsist- 
ant with the doctrines announced in 1834 on this subject, he is 
not aware of it. Throughout his public life, he has maintained 
that the underlying principle of the whole structure of Ameri- 
can free institutions is the ultimate absolute sovereign right of 
local-self-government on the part of each State, constituting the 
several members of the system. This the indlsjmtable facts 
of our history show to be true ! He believes, moreover, with 
the utmost sincerity, that if the promulgation of these facts 
and truths be " pernicious, destructive, and revolutionary," that 
they are so ^;6r?^^(?^o^^1S, destructive, and Tevolutionary only to 
that party organization whose aims and objects are by usurpa- 
tions of power, and the suppression of truth, to overthrow the 
whole fabric of free government instituted by our ancestors, and 
to erect in its stead a consolidated, centralized Empire. 
Yours, very respectfully, 

Alexander H. Stephens. 



II. — ^Rejoinder of the "New Era." 

TTie Secession Revival. — Efforts to Resurrect and Revive Dead Issues. 
— 3Ir. Stephens'' Letter. 

Mr. Stephens, in the introduction to his work entitled " The 
War Between the States," declares the object of that book to 
be, "an inquiry into the nature of the Government of the 
United States, or the nature of the Union which exists between 
the States under the Constitution, with the causes, or conflict 
of principles, which led to a resort to arms." In his communi- 
cation, which we cheerfully publish elsewhere, he disclaims any 
pui*pose " to set up, advance, or advocate any mere theory as to 



208 EE VIEWERS REVIEWED. 

the nature or character of the Federal Government under the 
Union of the States, as established hy the Constitution." 

ISTow, a theory^ as eveiyhody knows, is " an exposition of the 
general principles of any science," as the theory of government, 
for instance. It is a philosophical explanation of a phenomenon ; 
and this phenomenon may be physical, as, for instance, the 
congelation of water into a hard, brittle substance called ice ; 
or it may be moral, as for instance, the -great moral phenom- 
enon of the reformation of the sixteenth century ; or the phys- 
ical conflict witnessed in the United States in 1861. It is for 
the purpose of explaining this last-named, phenomenon, that 
Mr. Stephens takes up his pen ; and he succeeds in this expla- 
nation, to his own satisfaction, at least, upon the hypothesis 
that the Government of the United States, as formed by the 
Constitution of 178 Y, is not a I^ation, not a "consolidated 
Union," as President Washington said it was, but merely a 
League or " Compact " between several sovereign and inde- 
pendent States or nations. Consequently, he assumes that, }>e- 
cause the national Government took measures to enforce its 
authority as a Nation, it transcended it^ authority as a federa- 
tive Agent of a plurality of nationalities, and was, therefore, in 
the wrong. Hence, according to Mr. Stephens' theory or ex- 
position of the principles of our Government, the right of 
Secession still inheres with the people of any one of the States ; 
and they may exercise this " right " at any time without, in 
any manner, violating the Constitution. This conclusion is 
legitimate, because Mr. Stephens' theory invests each State with 
" an ecpial right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of 
the mode and measure of redress! " 

Such, in brief, is Mr. Stephens' " theory ; " and upon such a 
theory, or, rather, shall we not say hypothesis, nothing is easier 
than to arrive at the conclusion that the present Government 
of the United States is " usurj)ational, unconstitutional, revolu- 
tionary, null, and void," because maintained by authority not 
granted in the original Constitution, or written agreement of 
the " Compact ! " That is certainly the logical sequence of Mr. 
Stephens' theory, the legitimate conclusion from liis premises, 
whether he so intended it or not. It is, therefore, not his con- 



REJOINDER OF "NEW ERA." 209 

elusions ^:)(3?' se, but ratlicr the false and mischievous premises — 
the pernicious theory — from which his conclusions legitimately 
follow, that are objectionable in the argument of his book. 

This theory of a federative Agency of independent Sover- 
eign States, as established by the Constitution, was never heard 
of until some years after the adoption of that instrument by 
the people of the diflerent States. It is a notorious fact that 
so long as the people of any State withheld their assent from 
the Federal Constitution, it was universally represented and 
reprobated by its adversaries as a scheme of " absolute and un- 
disguised consolidation ! " It expressly withdrew from the 
States, and invested in one sovereign head all power with re- 
gard to war, to treaties, and to diplomatic or commercial inter- 
course ; and its opponents pointed to this fact as proof irresisti- 
ble of the correctness of their position that it provided for an 
absolute and undisguised consolidation of the States into one 
General Government, a government having supreme authority, 
and therefore demanding the Ultimate Allegiance of the citizen. 
Its express inhibition of any alliance, compact, or treaty be- 
tween two or more of the States, was to the minds of the anti- 
Federalists even more conclusive on this head ; the very pre- 
amble to the instrument proclaimed it, as they said, the work 
of the PEOPLE of the United States, and not a mere Alliance or 
Compact between independent States, in their capacity of sepa- 
rate and distinct sovereignties. 

Speaking of this very point, in opposition to the Govern- 
ment provided in the Constitution, Patrick Henry said : " That 
this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear ; and 
the danger of such a government is to my mind very striking. 
. ... If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must 
be one great, Consolidated, National Government of the people 
of the States. ... I need not take much pains to show that 
the principles of this system, i. e., the system proposed by the 
Constitution, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and danger- 
ous." 

The Constitution was, in the opinion of Mr. Henry, " per- 
nicious, impolitic, and dangerous," hecause it provided, not for 
a league, a compact between the sovereign States ; but because 
14 



210 REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

it provided for a consolidated, Central Government of the Peo- 
ple of the United States, a Government demanding the ulti- 
mate allegiance of the citizen even as against the State organi- 
zation. 

Nor did the advocates of the proposed system controvert 
the conclnsions of its opponents on this point. On the con- 
trary, they frankly admitted that the Constitution was the work 
of the people of the United States, as distinguished from the 
States in their primary and sovereign capacity. They did not 
hesitate to assert that the Government provided by this Con- 
stitution claimed the highest allegiance of the citizen. They 
even went beyond the objections urged by its opponents, and 
plainly told them that the Constitution left the States no re- 
served or undivided sovereignty whatever ; and this was mani- 
fest in the fict that, by the Constitution, the States had ex- 
pressly ceded the right to punish treason — not treason against 
their separate power, but treason against the United States ; 
and treason being an offense against sovereignty, sovereignty 
must necessarily reside exclusively with the power competent 
to punish it. Even General Washington did not hesitate to 
assert that the end proposed by this Constitution was the " cox- 
soLroATioN of our Union ; " and he never ceased to regard as 
of the highest importance and the greatest benefit, the fact that 
the Constitution which he lived to see adapted by the people of 
all the States, did provide for a " consolidated Union " or Gov- 
ernment demanding the ultimate allegiance of the citizen, even 
as against the individual State. And history teaches no one 
thing more clearly than that it was the purpose of the framers 
of the Constitution, to render the inhabitants of all the States 
essentially and jperinanently one people, living under a com- 
mon Government, and recognized by a common National desig- 
nation. This fact is fully demonstrated in the published de- 
bates and the wi'itings between and by the advocates and oppo- 
nents of the Constitution. Both parties were agreed as to the 
general scope, purport, and design of the instrument. There 
was no dispute then as to the truth of the proposition that it 
provided for a consolidated National Government of the peo- 
ple of the United States, and not merely for a Confederation, 



REJOINDER OF <'NEW ERA." 211 

Alliance, or League between sovereign, independent, and sepa- 
rate States. One party advocated its adoption lecause it thns 
provided for a consolidated Government of the People, and it 
was for this identical reason that the other opposed it. This is 
a matter of history which we do not remember ever to have 
seen controverted; and when controverted, then will be time 
to qnote authorities. 

It was not imtil after the Constitution had been ratified, 
and therefore not until after this great Central Power or Na- 
tionality which they so much dreaded had been formed, that 
the opponents of the Constitution became— at least in profession 
—its most ardent admirers and vigilant guardians ! They fell 
so much in love with what they termed a scheme of absolute 
Consolidation, that they actually became the champions of the 
Constitution as against those who had framed it and with diffi- 
culty achieved its ratification ! In a few years thereafter, these 
same parties began to talk about "strict construction," the "re- 
served rights " to the States of all powers not expressly dele- 
gated to the General Government, and consequently of Federal 
usurpation! For, in 1798 we find the celebrated "Virginia 
and Kentucky Ptesolutions," the authorship of which was*^not 
openly avowed by Mr. Jeff'erson until nearly twenty years 
thereafter, and which constituted the corner-stone upon which 
Mr. Calhoun erected his Nullification heresies, as they are also 
the basis upon which Mr. Stephens erects his present defence 
of Secession ! Three years after the date of these somewhat 
celebrated political theses, Mr. Jeff'erson became President of 
the United States ; and the proposed purchase of Louisiana put 
his fidelity to the "strict construction" theory to the severest 
possible test. In the Constitution there was clearly no author- 
ity for the purchase unless found in that clause which provides 
for the "general welfare;" and this Mr. Jefferson had pre- 
viously declared, in the set of Kesolutions above referred to, 
was meant " to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited 
powers." There could be no power not " expressly " granted, 
said Mr. Jefiferson ; nevertheless he did recommend the pur- 
chase, thereby giving us to infer either that he knowingly vio- 
lated the instrument whose provisions he had sworn to sup- 



212 REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

port ; or else tliat he held his partisan thesis of " strict construc- 
tion," and its concomitant crochets about the " reserved sov- 
ereignty of the States," in subordination to his higher sense of 
. duty as head of the Nation ! 

In 1832, South Carolina threatened the exercise of this " re- 
served right " in the nullification of a law of Congress. Being, 
according to Mr. Stephens' theory, an independent power, in 
every thing except the prerogatives " expressly " delegated to 
the Federal " agency " or " compact," she undertook to fall 
back upon her " sovereignty " as an independent power, and 
declare a law of Congress a " usurpation, unconstitutional, 
revolutionary, null, and void " — just as Mr. Stephens and his 
echoes now say of the Constitutional amendments and the Re- 
construction laws of the Government ! Mr. Hayne, of South 
Carolina, as the representative of that theory, held that it was 
constitutional to interrupt the administration of the Constitu- 
tion itself, in the hands of those who had been chosen to ad- 
minister it, by the direct interference in the form of law, of the 
States, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. This threatened 
purpose to carry the theory of strict construction and State 
sovereignty to its legitimate sequence in the form of Nullifica- 
tion, was promptly met and put down by President Jackson, 
who declared that " It would be solecism to contend that any 
part of a nation may dissolve its connection with the other 
parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any ofience," 
to the constitution of its government. And yet, according to 
Mr. Stephens, South Carolina had the Constitutional right to 
do this very thing ; because, according to his understanding of 
the Constitution, it made the State the sole judge as well of the 
infraction as of the mode and measure of redress ! 

When the next effort was made to reduce this pernicious 
theory to practice, Mr. Stephens opposed it, as he tells us, from 
considerations of policy ; but he maintained, at the same time, 
as he intimates, that Georgia had the constitutional right to 
" break the sacred instrument " in order the better to preserve 
the " principles " upon which it was founded ! 

He made one of the most manly and truly eloquent appeals 
on record, against the proposition to secede ; and he even went 



REJOINDER OF "NEW ERA." . 213 

80 fin* as to say that to secede for such a cause, or upon such an 
occasion — the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency — would 
be to break the Constitution, violate our plighted faith to the 
other States, and put ourselves clearly in the wrong. lie 
claims, however, in the communication, which we publish this 
morning, that because he denied the rightful authority to 
secede for such a cause or npon such an occasion, he did not 
thereby assume that no State could rightfully exercise her sov- 
ereig-n power in withdrawing for any cause whatever. Now, 
since Mr. Stephens tells us that the object of his book is to 
show who was right and who was wrong in the recent physical 
conflict, it must follow, according to Mr. Stephens' own premises, 
that the secession leaders in the Democratic party were the 
culpable parties, since they did exercise a "right" which he 
himself had, only a few months previous, pronounced unjusti- 
fiable ! It is true, Mr. Stephens, in the communication under 
notice, makes an ingenious special plea on this point — a plea 
that gives him more character as a sharp attorney than credit 
for philosophical statesmanship ; but the query very naturally 
arises in the minds of plain men. Why did Mr. Stephens fail 
then to say that for other then existing causes than the mere 
election of Mr. Lincoln, the State might exercise the " right " 
of secession without violating the Constitution, and conse- 
quently without being in the wrong? If he ever said any 
thing of this kind until it became his task to justify the act of 
Secession, and harmonize his Union speech of November 14, 
1860, with his course afterward, it has escaped our notice. 

There is another point in Mr. Stephens' book, hinted at in 
his communication of this morning, which cannot escape the 
attention of the critical reader. Paramount authority or Sov- 
ereignty, according to the legitimate inferences from that book, 
rests with the People. This, we presume, no one questions ; 
but, then, who are the People ? Evidently they are the citizens 
of the United States, and not a majority in some individual 
State of the Union, comprising less than one-twentieth of the 
citizens of the United States. According to the genius of our 
Government, the People may, on the ground of the inalienable 
right of man, resist oppression ; that is to say, they may right- 



214 ■ EEVIEWEES EEVIEWED. 

fully resist the government, or ratlier the adminstration of it, 
upon the ground of revolution. This right of revolution no- 
body denies ; but the constitutional right of Secession, clearly 
implies that we have no Constitution of General Government, 
and, therefore, no ITation, but rather a diplomatic Agency of 
thirty-six independent States or nationalities, which may be 
broken up and destroyed any morning before breakfast, and 
for any cause or causes that a majority of the people one thirty- 
sixth of the Union may deem justifiable. And all this, accord- 
ing to Mr. Stephens' understanding of the nature of our Gov- 
ernment, would be constitutional ! 

]^ow, Mr. Stephens may honestly believe all this, and it 
may have been his honest belief, as he says it has been, for 
more than thirty years ; and yet that fact does not make his 
theory any the less destructive of the peace and order of society. 
And, in view of the dreadful experiences of the past, the 
people of Georgia cannot look with much favor upon any 
scheme, whether in the field of literature or upon the forum, 
looking to the resurrection and rehabilitation of a political 
party denying the nationality and sovereignty of the Govern- 
ment, and wjiich holds Secession and nullification to be consti- 
tutional prerogatives, to be held in abeyance until such oppor- 
tunities may arise as will unite jpolicij with prinoiple in the de- 
struction of the Union ! 



III. — Me. Stephens' Suk-eejoinder to the "]^ew Eea." 

Liberty Hall, ) 

Crawfordville, Georgia, December 2, ISTO. ) 

To the Editor of the New Era, Atlanta, Ga. : 

Deae Sm : — I thank you for the publication of my letter of 
the 19th ultimo. In that, your readers, I feel quite assured, 
found proof sufiicient to satisfy them that "Mr. Stephens of 1868 
and 1870 does not reverse Mr. Stephens of 1860 and 1861." 
This point, therefore, may be considered settled, but one re- 
mark made by you editorially on this subject in the same issue, 
justifies, if it does not call for, a brief comment by me which I 



SUR-REJOINDER TO "NEW ERA." 215 

trust you will allow me to make. The remark to wliicli I allude 
is in these words : 

"It is true, Mr, Stephens, in the communication under notice, makes 
an ingenious special plea on this point — a plea that gives him more 
character as a sharp attorney than credit for philosophical statesmanship ; 
but the query very naturally rises in the minds of plain men, "Why did 
Mr. Stephens fail then to say that for other then existing causes than the 
mere election of Mr. Lincoln, the State might exercise the 'right' of 
secession without violating the Constitution, and consequently without 
being in the wrong ? If he ever said any thing of this kind until it be- 
came his task to justify the act of Secession, and harmonize his Union 
speech of November 14, 18G0, with his course afterward, it has escaped 
our notice." 

To this I wish merely to say that the extracts furnished in 
the communication, to which you refer, were taken from the 
same speech from which you quoted in your issues of the litli 
and 16th ultimo. If they escaped your notice, either when the 
speech was made, or when you were quoting from it, it shows 
much more clearly, you will allow me most respectfully to say, 
that you are a careless reader, than that I, in their reproduction, 
exhibited, in any way, the character of a bare " sharp attorney." 
These very extracts were part and parcel of the same speech^ 
which you are pleased to characterize as very " statesmanlike ; " 
and went with it broadcast over the United States. 

As to what else you say in your two columns' comments on 
my communication of the 19th ultimo, I have also some remarks 
to submit to your consideration and that of your readers, for 
which I shall solicit your indulgence. 

In no part of these comments do you directly assail any of 
the facts touching the history of the Federal Government set 
forth in the " two volumes " referred to, which you seem to 
think have been arrayed with a view to establish a theory quite 
destructive, in your opinion, of the " peace of society ; " but 
you do indulge at considerable length in round statements, 
which are entirely inconsistent with these facts. 

Among other things you say : 

" This theory of a federative Agency of independent Sovereign States, 
as established by the Constitution, was never heard of until some years 
after the adoption of that instrument by the people of the different States. 



216 REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

It is a notorious fact that so long as the people of any State withheld , 
their assent from the Federal Constitution, it was universally represented 
and reprobated by its adversaries as a scheme of 'absolute and undisguised 
consolidation ! ' It expressly withdrew from the States, and invested in 
one sovereign head, all power with regard to war, to treaties, and to 
diplomatic or commercial intercourse ; and its opponents pointed to this 
fact as proof irresistible of the correctness of their position that it provided 
for an absolute and undisguised consolidation of the States into one Gen- 
eral Government, a government having unlimited authority, and therefore 
demanding the Ultimate Allegiance of the citizen. Its express inhibition 
of any alliance, compact, or treaty between two or more of the States was 
to the minds of the anti-Federalists even more conclusive on this head : 
the very preamble to the instrument proclaimed it, as they said, the work 
of the PEOPLE of the United States, and not a mere Alliance or Compact 
between independent States, in their capacity of separate and distinct 
sovereignties. 

" Speaking of tliis very point, in opposition to the Government provided 
in the Constitution, Patrick Henry said : ' That this is a consolidated Gov- 
ernment is demonstrably clear ; and the danger of such a government is 
to my mind very striking. ... If the States be not the Agents of this 
compact, it must be one great Consolidated, National Government of the 
people of the States. ... I need not take much pains to show that the 
principles of this system, i. e., the system proposed by the Constitution, 
are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous.' 

" The Constitution was, in the opinion of Mr. Henry, ' pernicious, im- 
politic, and dangerous,' because it provided, not for a league, a compact 
between the sovereign States ; but because it provided for a consolidated, 
Central Government of the People of the United States, a Government 
demanding the ultimate allegiance of the citizen even as against the State 
organization. 

" Nor did the advocates of the proposed system controvert the con- 
clusions of its opponents on this point. On the contrary, they frankly 
admitted that the Constitution was the work of the people of the United 
States, as distinguished from the States in their primary and sovereign 
capacity. They did not hesitate to assert that the Government provided 
by this Constitution claimed the highest allegiance of the citizen. They 
even went beyond the objections urged by its opponents, and i^lainly told 
them that the Constitution left the States no reserved or undivided sov- 
ereignty whatever ; and that this was manifest in the fact that, by the 
Constitution, the States had expressly ceded the right to punish treason — 
not treason against their separate power, but treason against the United 
States; and treason being an ofl'ence against sovereignty, sovereignty must 
• necessarily reside exclusively with the power competent to punish it. 
Even General Washington did not hesitate to assert that the end proposed 



SUR-REJOINDER TO "NEW ERA." 217 

by this Constitution was the ' consolidation of our Union ; ' and he 
never ceased to regard as of the highest importance, and the greatest bene- 
fit, the fact that the Constitution which he lived to see adopted by the 
people of all the States, did provide for a ' consolidated Union ' Govern- 
ment demanding the ultimate allegiance of the citizen even as against the 
individual State. And history teaches no one thing more clearly than 
that it was the purpose of the framers of the Constitution to render the 
inhabitants of all the States essentially and permanently one people, living 
under a common Government, and recognized by a common National 
designation. This fiict is fully demonstrated in the published debates and 
the writings between and by the advocates and opponents of the Constitu- 
tion. Both parties were agreed as to the general scope, jjurport, and 
design of the instrument. There was no dis2Jute ^7je?i as to the truth of 
the projiosition that it provided for a consolidated, National Government 
of the PEOPLE of the United States, and not merely for a Confederation, 
Alliance, or League between sovereign independent and separate States. 
One party advocated its adoption lecause it thus provided for a consoli- 
dated Government of the People, and it was for this identical reason that 
the other opposed it. This is a matter of history which we do not re- 
member ever to have seen controverted ; and v.dien controverted, then 
will be time to quote authorities." 

]^ow, allow me to say that truth is seldom arrived at in any 
department of knowledge, either by rambling discourse or 
wrangling disputation. I have no taste for either. In order, 
therefore, that we may come to a definite understanding upon 
points and issues oifact on which the truth of our history rests, 
as to the real nature and character of the Goveniment of the 
United States, let me ask : 

1st. Have you examined or " noticed " the documentary evi- 
dence adduced on page 48, et seqiiens, 1st vol. of the " War Be- 
tween the States," to prove the fact that the words, " consolida- 
tion of the TJnion^'' used in the letter of the Convention that 
framed the Constitution, addressed to the Congress of States 
then in session (which you attribute to General Washington, as 
thousands of others have erroneously done, but which was barely 
signed by him officially as President of the Convention), were 
not intended^ by those who prepared that letter, to convey the 
idea that the " Federal system " of the then existing Union of 
the States was to be done away with by the adoption of the 
new Constitution proposed ; but that the meaning of these 
words in their connection was only to strengthen the then exist- 



218 REYIEWERS REVIEWED. 

ing Federal Union of the States? If so, do you assail its 
authenticity or deny its sufficiency ? 

2d. Have you examined or " noticed " the record adduced 
on page 238, vol. 1st, from which it appears, that when Mr. 
Shurtliff in the Massachusetts' ratifying Convention, called at- 
tention especially to this point, and remarked (referring to the 
Convention which framed the Constitution, and the 'cery words 
quoted by you), " The Convention says they aimed at a consoli- 
dation of the Union," he was told by distinguished leaders in 
that body, who favored the ratification, " The distinction is be- 
tween the consolidation of the States and a consolidation of the 
TJnioiir " The word consolidation has different ideas — as diff- 
erent metals melted into one mass — two twigs tied into one 
bundle." " The Senators will represent the sovereignty of the 
States, the Representatives are to represent the people." 

If so, do you assail the authenticity of the record, or deny 
its sufficiency to prove that the advocates of the Constitution 
in the Massachusetts Convention did not claim for it that con- 
solidation of the whole peojoUe of the United States into one 
lody politic, and a surrender of the sovereignty of the several 
States which you maintain they did ? 

3d. Have you examined or " noticed " the record adduced 
on page 214, 1st vol., Avhich shows that Mr. Wilson, in the Rati- 
fying Convention of Pennsylvania, who had been one of the 
most active members in the convention which framed the Con- 
stitution, and one of its most ardent advocates and supporters, 
said, that the plan j^roposed for the government of the United 
States was a " Confederate Republic," and that (page 222) so 
far from its being " a consolidated Government " (in the sense 
you speak of), " it was not treated with decency when such insin- 
uations are offered against it f " If so, do you assail either the 
competency or sufficiency of the proof there adduced, to utterly 
demolish your assertions as to the position of the friends and 
advocates of the Constitution everywhere, when it was before 
the State Convention for adoption ? 

4th. Have you examined or " noticed " the evidence ad- 
duced, page 277, et sequens, 1st vol., which shows that every 
supporter of the Constitution in the Ratifying Convention of 



SUR-EEJOINDER TO "NEW ERA." 219 

the State of New York, held and maintained, that the plan of 
Government proposed by the Constitution was a " Confederated 
Republic," and that even Alexander Hamilton, in that Conven- 
tion, on the point of " consolidation,^^ said (page 283, 1st vol.), 
" The States can never lose their powers till the whole people 
of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go to- 
gether ; they must support each other, or meet one common 
fate ? " If so, do you assail the authenticity of the proof, or 
deny its sufficiency to establish the fact, that no advocate or 
friend of the Constitution in the New York Convention claimed 
for it a surrender of the sovereignty of the several States as 
you maintain they did ? 

5tli. Have you examined or " noticed " the proofs adduced 
on page 156, et sequens, 1st vol., to show the fact that "Wash- 
ington himself, who had officially signed the letter prepared by 
the Convention that framed the Constitution, in which occur 
the words quoted by you about a " consolidation of the Union " 
after that letter had been published and discussed, and while the 
Constitution was under consideration for adoption or rejection, 
by a sufficient number of States to make it " Ijinding 'between " 
those which should ratify it, in speaking of the nature of the Gov- 
ernment which would be established by it, styled it " a new 
Confederacy," "new Federal system," and a "Confederated 
Government ; " and that, in a message to the Senate after ten 
States had ratified it, and the Government had gone into oper- 
ation under it, he styled it a " Confederated Republic? " 

If so, do you assail the validity of the proofs, or maintain 
that the views of Washington, as expressed in these proofs, are 
at all consistent with yours, touching a "consolidation of the 
Union," and a general merger of the sovereignty of the several 
States into one absolute, supreme, central head % 

6th. Have you examined or " noticed " the evidence ad- 
duced on page 163, et sequens, 1st vol., which shows conclu- 
sively, if true, that every advocate of the ratification of the 
Constitution in all the States, from Georgia to New Hampshire, 
supported it avowedly, upon the universal understanding, that 
the Government to be established by it was not a consolidation 
of all the people of all the* States into one -central Government 



220 REVIEWEES EEYIEWED. 

— claiming their allegiance — bnt that it was to be a " Federal," 
or " Confederated," union of tlie States ? 

If so, do you assail its validity, or deny its conclusiveness ? 

Ytli. Have you examined or " noticed " the proofs on page 
167, et seqiiens, 1st vol., of the well-known meaning of the words 
" Federal," " Federate," and " Confederate," in that day ; as 
given by Dr. Samuel Johnson, in his standard Dictionary of the 
English Language — showing that each and all of these words 
are derived from the Latin word Foedus, which means covenant 
or compact ; and that '-^FederaV meant '-'- relating to a League 
w Contract^'' and that " Federate " meant " leagued^ joined in 
a Confederacy?" 

If so, do you gainsay the proof or deny the use and force of 
its application ? 

8th. Have you examined or " noticed " the proofs adduced 
on the same page, which shows that Dr. Noah "Webster, the 
great American lexicographer, who took an active part in the 
formation of the present Constitution, says, in his Dictionary, 
of this word " Federal," that it is derived from the Latin word 
^^foedus," which means " a league " — that the word " league " 
he defines to be " an Alliance or Confederacy between Princes 
or States for their mutual aid or defense," and that, in defining 
the meaning of the word " Federal," he used this language : 
" Consisting in a comjyact hetween States / founded on alliance 
by contract or mutual agreement, as a Federal Government, 
such as that of the United States ? " 

If so, do you gainsay the proof or deny the proper use and 
force of its application ? 

It is true that after the late war was begun and the " peace 
of society" was disturbed by it — in 1864 — certain editors, in 
publishing a new edition of this great Dictionary, after the 
death of the distinguished author, did most unjustifiably, if not 
sacrilegiously, expunge from it this definition, as they did the 
author's definition of several other words relating to the nature 
and character of the Government of the United States, such 
as " compact," " Congress," " Confederation," " Constitution," 
etc. But do you assail either the authenticity of the proofs ad- 
duced, or their conclusiveness in establishing the fact, that the 



SUE-REJOINDER TO "NEW ERA," 221 

universally received sense and meaning of the words at the 
time, were as defined by Dr. Jolmson and Dr. Webster ? If 
you cannot assail or deny either, is not the conclusion irresisti- 
ble, that the universal opinion of the friends of the Constitu- 
tion when it was adopted, was, that the Union of the States 
under it was " a Federal Union " — a Union founded upon com- 
pact between separate States for their mutual aid and defence; 
and that the Government established by it was, indeed, as 
Washington styled it, a " Confederated Republic ? " 

9th. Have you examined or " noticed " the authorities of 
Montesquieu and Vattel, adduced on pages 169 and ITO, 1st 
vol., as to the nature and character of a " Confederate Repub- 
lic," or " Federal Union ; " and from which it clearly appears, 
that, in all such cases, the sovereignty of each member of the 
Union or Confederacy is necessarily retained by the States 
severally — that " voluntary restraints " may be put upon its ex- 
ercise, as in all other cases of compact between States ; but that 
in no such case is ultimate sovereignty parted with by any 
State, upon entering into a Union of this character? K so, do 
you gainsay the genuineness of the authority cited, or deny the 
extent of the use or application made of them ? 

10th. Have you examined or " noticed " the evidence adduced 
on pages 162, et sequens, and 257, et seqnens, 1st vol., showing 
how Patrick Henry (who did oppose the adoption of the Con- 
stitution in the Virginia Convention, from fears that the char- 
acter which you and other Centralists now claim for the Gov- 
ernment imder it, would be imparted to it by construction, and 
that Public Liberty would thereby be ultimately lost) was an- 
swered by Pendleton, the President of the Convention, by Lee, 
Nicholas, Marshall, and Madison, to say nothing of others ? 

If so, do you deny that it does conclusively show that no 
one of them agreed with Patrick Henry in the sentiments ex- 
pressed by him, and quoted by you ? Does not the evidence 
show beyond the possibility of a doubt that every one of these 
friends and advocates of the Constitution in the Virginia Rati- 
fying Convention maintained that Patrick Henry's position was 
wrong — that his views were entirely erroneous — that his appre- 
hensions were utterly groundless ; and that the Government to 



223 REVIEWERS REVIEWED. 

be establislied would be Federal in its cliaracter — ^founded upon 
a compact between the States — delegating certain specially 
enumerated powers which could be resumed if abused ; and 
not such a " consolidated Government " as he apprehended it 
would be construed to he ? 

11th. Does not the proof show that every advocate of the Consti- 
tution in the Convention of Yirginia as in that of Massachusetts, 
of Pennsylvania, of ITew York, and of every other State, sup- 
ported it as a Federal Constitution ? Did not Madison, in re- 
ply to these very remarks quoted by you of Patrick Henry, say : 
" Who are the parties to it ? The People ; but not the People 
as composing one great body ; but the People as composing 
thirteen sovereignties F" 

If so, how do you say that " this theory (if you please, or 
iMx'&fact, as I should rather say), of a Federative Agency of in- 
dependent sovereign States, as established by the Constitution, 
was never heard of until some years after the adoption of that 
Instrument by tlie people of the different States % " 

12th. Have you examined or " noticed " the proof adduced 
on page 475, 1st vol., showing the views of General Jackson 
upon this identical question ? Upon the authority of this dis- 
tinguished hero and statesman you rely concerning another 
matter alluded to in your article. But have you examined or 
noticed what he said of the nature of the General Government, 
and the sovereignty of the several States, in his farewell addi-ess, 
wherein, among many other of the same sort, these most perti- 
nent and potent words occur : (Italics mine.) 

" From the extent of our country, its diversified interests, 
difierent pursuits, and different habits, it is too obvious for 
argument, that a single consolidated Government would be 
wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its interests, and 
every friend of oxir Free Institutions should be always prepared 
to. maintain, iinim^paired and infidl vigor, the rights and sover- 
eignty of the States, and to confine the action of the General 
Government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties ? " 

If so, do you deny the authenticity of the proof adduced ? 
And if not, must you not admit that even General Jackson, 
though opposed as he was to the doctrine of nullification, yet 



SUR-REJOINDER TO "NEW ERA." 223 

maintained the great truth in our history of the sovereignty of 
the States? 

Without extending the number of tliese points or issues of 
fact on which rests the truth of history, allow me now barely 
to add that if you have examined and noticed these proofs, to 
say nothing of others, then I do not understand how you came 
to say in your comments referred to, in speaking of the Con- 
stitution and the nature of the Government established by it, 
that " one party advocated its adoption hecause it thus provided 
for a consolidated Government of the People, and it was for 
this identical reason that the other opposed it. This is matter 
of history which we do not remember ever to have seen con- 
troverted, and when controverted, then will be time to quote 
authorities." 

Kow, do not these few proofs here referred to, taken from 
many adduced in the two volumes, plainly show that the Con- 
stitution was adopted because it was not the " consolidated 
Government" which you claim it to be, but v:as just the 
" Federal " or " Confederated Republic " which it is shown to 
be in the " two volumes," and that an overwhelming majority 
of all parties, at the time, if they had regarded it as the thing 
you now represent it to be, would have united in its utter re- 
pudiation ? 

Then, again, if you have not examined or noticed these 
proofs, it seems to me most of your intelligent readers will 
come to the very proper conclusion that you would do well to 
study more closely the contents of a book before undertaking 
to pronounce its teachings ei^iher 2)ernicious, dangerous, or revo- 
lutionary ! 

Was it, however, allow me also to ask you, " a jpernicious, 
dangerous^ and revolutionary " truth to utter, when Washing- 
ton proclaimed that the Government hi the United States was 
a " Confederacy," or " Confederated Ecpublic ? " 

K not, is it more pernicious, dangerous, or revolutionary to 
promulgate the same truth now than it was then ? 

Was it either i^ernicious, dangerous, or revolutionary for 
General Jackson to assert the fact of the sovereignty of the 
States under the Constitution : and urffe its maintenance in the 



224: EEVIEWEES EEVIEWED. 

most earnest manner? K not, is it more pernicious, dangerous, 
or revolutionary to promulgate the same truth, and for the same 
reasons, now than it was then f Are not the perils of " a single 
Consolidated Government" — a Central Despotism — as great 
now as they were then? Is there any thing in the "two 
volumes" more pernicious, dangerous, or revolutionary, on 
this subject, than General Jackson's own solemn warning, 
that " every friend of our Free Institutions should he always 
prejyared to maintain unimjmired and in full vigor the rights 
and sovereignty of the States ; and to confine the action of the 
General Government strictly to the sjjhere of its ajjpropriate 
duties f^ 

Away, my dear sir, with the chimera of " Secession Re- 
vived ! " Give yourself no uneasiness from any teachings of 
mine on that score. The right of a mode of redressing griev- 
ances or wrongs of any sort, and the j^oUcy of it, are very dif- 
ferent questions, and present very different considerations. 
Secession, as a mode of redress of grievances or breaches of the 
Compact between the States, has been abandoned, in good 
faith, and I doubt not forever 1 That is, indeed, a dead 4ssus ! 
Eut the indestructible right upon which it rested can and will 
never die. It was abandoned, not because of the want of right, 
but because of its impolicy in attaining the object aimed at, by 
its advocates as the surest and safest mode of escape from the 
usurpations of Power. In the 2d of the " two volumes " you 
refer to, on pages 530-31, you will see, if you read closely, that 
in my judgment, one of its greatest errors in policy, at the 
time it was resorted to, consisted in " the separation which 
it necessarily produced between the real friends of the prin- 
ciples of the Constitution, North and South, in a common 
contest between them and the Centralists. It was, in truth, a 
great battle — the Political Armageddon of America — in which 
there should have been a concentration of forces, instead of 
that dispersion which of necessity resulted from secession." 

This Political Armageddon of America is yet to be decided 
— not on battle-fields, but in the Porum, on the Hustings, by 
the Press, and at the Polls ! The contest is now waging, and 
in it is involved the greatest living issue at present before the 



SUR-BEJOINDER TO "NEW ERA." 225 

people of every State and Section, and the greatest tliat will 
be before tliem for years to come. It is the issue, on one side, 
of Consolidation — Centralism — Empire ; and, on tlie other the 
Sovereign Right of Local Self-government by the Peoples of 
the several States of this Continent. 

To achieve the victory of this contest the friends of onr ^ree 
Institutions in every State of our Federal Union, from Maine 
to California, from the Gulfs to the Lakes, must make common 
cause. Joint efforts are necessary for separate success. As 
their common ancestors united in 17T6 under lead of Washing- 
ton to establish this great right, and then again in 1800, under 
Jefferson to save it, when imperiled ; so now they must unite 
in patriotic action for its rescue and perpetuation. For success 
in the struggle they will need no weapons but the truths of his- 
tory — the teachings of the Fathers — and the parting admoni- 
tions of Jackson. 

Yours, most respectfully, 

Alexandee II. Stephens. 
15 



APPENDIX. 



[The following articles, in Review of the "Reconstruction Measures" 
of Congress, being entirely germain to the subjects discussed in this vol- 
ume, and covering important points not therein embraced, are deemed by 
the author as very fit material for a very appropriate Appendix to the 
foregoing Supplement to the "Constitutional View of the War between 
the States; its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Besultsy 

In reference to these appended articles, it need only be stated that the 
two speeches were by Hon. Linton Stephens under the following circum- 

The' first was delivered in the city of Macon, Georgia, on the 23d of 
January, 1871, in his own defence, before a Federal Commissioner, against 
a crimmal charge founded upon an alleged violation of the "Enforce- 
ment Act" of 1870. The final result of the case was an abandonment of 
the prosecution by the Government. 

The second was addressed to a public audience in the city of Augusta, 
Georgia, on the 18th of February, 1871. 

The letter of Ex-Governor Jenkms to Governor Smith (who now occu- 
pies the Gubernatorial Chair of Georgia) requires no explanation. This 
restoration of the Seal of the Executive Department of the State, which 
has been heroically saved from the hands of usurpers, has its historical 
parallel in the restoration of their " old charter " to the people of Connec- 
ticut, in 1C88, after its safe preservation for some time in the "old oak" 
during the repression of their rightful Government by the infamous An- 
dros and his military bands.] 



LINTON STEPHENS ON EECONSTRUOTION. 227 

L 

Speech of Hon. Linton Stephens, in Macon, Georgia, on the 
" Reconstruction Measures," and the " Enforcement 
Act" of 1S70, delivered 23d of January, 1871. 

May it lilease tJie Court : I know full well that, it' your 
Honor is not superior to tlie average of poor human nature, 
you will find it difficult, if not impossible, to give my defence 
in this case an impartial consideration, and an honest decision. 
The prosecution against me is founded on the course which I 
took in the recent political election^ which resulted in a victory 
for my j)arty, and a defeat for yours. It is also directly in the 
line of an assault which was lately made against me in the 
newspapers, by the official head of your party in this State. I, 
therefore, recognize in this case a ])olitical jprosecutioii^ just as 
distinctly as I recognize in my judge a most zealous and deter- 
mined political opponent. Yet, sir, there are other considera- 
tions which encourage me to hope that I may obtain, even from 
you^ that decision which is demanded by justice and by the 
laws. From the personal loiowledge of you, which I have ac- 
quired since the beginning of this trial,.! have discovered that 
you are a man of decided intelligence ; and I am told that you 
are a man of courage. I am also told that you, yourself, have 
been, in some instances, a victim of political persecution, and 
an object of unjust obloquy. Surely, such a man, with such an 
experience, ought to give a fair hearing to one whose only fault 
is not any -\vi*ong which he has committed against the laws, but 
the damage which he has inflicted upon a political party. My 
greatest encouragement, however, is derived from my confi- 
dence in the lawfulness of my conduct, and the power of truth. 
To truth, bravely upheld, belongs a triumph which cannot be 
defeated, nor long delayed, not even by the intensest prejudices 
of partisan strife. I am strengthened, too, in the advocacy of 
truth on this occasion by the consciousness that, in defending 
myself, I shall be but defending principles which are dear to 
every American, because they lie at the foundation of the 



228 APPENDIX. 

whole fabric of American constitutional liberty. Nor, sir, un- 
less I am much mistaken in the* estimate which I have formed 
of your character, will you listen to my defence any the less 
favorably because of the frankness and boldness with which I 
shall present it. 

I am accused under -the Enforcement Act of Congress. 

My first position is, that this whole act is not a law, but a 
mere legal nullity. 

It was passed with the professed object of carrying into 
effect what are called the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amend- 
ments of the Constitution of the United States, and depends on 
their validity for its own. 

These so-called Amendments are, as I shall now proceed to 
show, not trtt^ Amendment's of the Constitution, and do not 
form any part of that sacred instrument. They are nothing but 
usurpations and nullities, having no validity themselves, and' 
therefore incapable of imparting any to the Enforcement Act, 
or to any other act whatsoever. 

I take occasion to say, that I regard the Thirteenth Amend- 
ment, abolishing slavery, as clearly distinguishable from the 
Fourteenth and Fifteenth so-called Amendments, in the man- 
ner both of its proposal and of its ratification. The contrast be- 
tween it and them will contribute to make their invalidity all 
the more apparent. It is true, that when the Thirteenth 
Amendment was proposed, ten States of the Union were absent 
from Congress ; but their absence was voluntary, and therefore 
did not affect the validity of the proposal. It is true, also, that 
the Legislatures which ratified it for these ten States had their 
initiation in a palpable usurpation of power on the part of the 
President of the United States ; yet it is also unquestionably 
true, that they were elected and sustained by overwhelming 
majorities of the true constitutional constituencies of the States 
for which they acted ; they rested on the consent of the people, 
or constitutional constituencies of the States, and were there- 
fore truly " Legislatures of the States." This Amendment was 
ratified by these Legislatures of the States in good faith, and 
in conformity with the almost unanimous wish of the constitu- 
tional " Peoples." 



LINTOX STEPHENS ON" RECONSTRUCTION. 229 

How diiferent is the case of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 
so-called Amendments ! If these are parts of the Constitution, 
I ask how did they become so ? Were they proposed by Con- 
gress in a constitutional manner ? 

In framing and proposing them every State in the Union 
was entitled, by the express terms of the Constitution, to be 
represented in speech and vote by " two Senators " and " at 
least one Eepresentativc." But ten States of the Union were 
absent. This time their absence was not voluntary but com- 
pelled. — When they were claiming a hearing through their con- 
stitutional representatives thoy were driven away, and denied 
all participation in framing and proposing these so-called 
Amendments! Was this a constitutional mode of proposal? 
I say, it was an unconstitutional mode, and that the proposal 
was, db initio, null and void. 

But how stands the ratijication of these so-called Amend- 
ments ? To say nothing about the duress of bayonets and Con- 
gressional dictation, under which the ratification was forced 
through the ratifying bodies in the ten Southern States, the 
great question is, who were these ratifying bodies ? Were they 
Legislatures of the States ? They were not. They were the 
creatures of notorious and avowed Congressional usurpation. 
They were elected, not by the constitutional constituencies of 
the States, but by constituencies created by Congress, not only 
outside of the Constitution, but in palpable violation of one of 
its express provisions. The suffrage or political power of the 
States is not delegated to the General Government by the Con- 
stitution ; but on the contrary, its reservation by the States is 
rendered exceedingly emphatic by that provision of the Consti- 
tution which, instead of creating a constituency to elect its own 
officers — President, Y ice-President, and members of Congress — 
adopts the constituencies of the States, as regulated by the 
States themselves, for the election of the most numerous branch 
of their own Legislatures. 

Ten of the ratifications, which were falsely counted in favor 
of these miscalled Amendments as ratifications by Legislatures 
of States, were only ratifications by bodies which had their ori- 
gin in Congressional usiirpation, were elected by illegal con- 



230 APPENDIX. 

stitiiencies unknown to the Constitution of the United States 
or the Constitutions of the States, and were organized and 
manipulated under the control of military commanders who 
claimed and exercised the jurisdiction of passing upon the elec- 
tion and qualification of their rnembers. Can these joint prod- 
ucts of usurpation, fi-aud, and force be palmed off as Legislatures 
of States ? Can ratifications by them be accepted as ratifications 
by Legislatures of States ? Can falsehood thus be converted 
into truth by the thimble-rigging of Presidential proclama- 
tions ? These bodies were, indeed, set up by their usurping 
creators, as Legislatures for and over States ; but until the 
known truth of recent history can be blotted out by the mere 
power of shameless assertion, they cannot be recognized as 
Legislatures of States. The Parliament of Great Britain is a 
Legislature /br and over poor, down-trodden Ireland ; but what 
Irishman will ever recognize it as the Legislature of Ireland ! 

The false, spurious, and revolutionary character of these 
ratifying bodies is rendered still more glaring by the fact that, 
supported by the bayonet, they subverted, or rather repressed, 
the true, legitimate Legislatures of all the States where recon- 
struction was applied. That such Legislatures existed in these 
States, and are indeed still existing, is demonstrable from the 
facts viewed in the light of either of the two theories of seces- 
sion — that of its validity or invalidity. On either theory the 
seceding States remained States. On the one theory they were 
States out of the Union ; on the other, they have remained all 
the while States in the Union. The Supreme Court of the 
United States, in the recent case of White vs. Texas, speaking 
through Mr. Chief Justice Chase, held that secession was in- 
valid, and that the States which had attempted it remained and 
still are States in the Union. 

A State is not a disorganized mass of peoj)le. It is an or^ 
ganized political body. It must have a Constitution of some 
sort, written or traditional. Being an organized body, it must 
have a law of organization or composition or Constitution, de- 
fining the depositary of its political power. "Where there is no 
such constitutional or constituting or organizing or fundamen- 
tal law, there can be no organization — no State. These ten 



LINTON STEPHENS ON" RECONSTEUCTION. 231 

States, then, whicli seceded or attempted to secede (as the one 
theory or the other may be held), have all the while had Con- 
stitutions. In point of fact, each of these has ever been a written 
Constitution, giving the ballot io defined classes of citizens who 
are known as the constitutional constituency of the State. This 
'constitutional constituency is entrusted by each of these Consti- 
tutions with power over the Constitution itself, in modifying or 
changing it, and of course in modifying or changing the organi- 
zation or composition of the constitutional constituency. This 
constitutional constituency is the depositary of the highest po- 
litical power of the State. Any change made in the Constitu- 
tion or organization of the State, or in the composition of the 
constitutional constituency, as it may exist at any time, without 
the concurrent action of the constitutional constituency itself, is 
revolution. It is disorganization. It is the subversion or sup- 
pression (as it may prove permanent or temporary) of one or- 
ganization, and the substitution of another. It is the abolition 
(permanent or temporary) of the old State, and the introduction 
of a new one. 

Each of these ten States, in 1865, at the close of the war, 
being then a State^ had a Constitution and a constitutional con- 
stituency linked back by unbroken succession to the Constitu- 
tion and constitutional constituency as they existed before 
secession. Secession made no break in the chain. The pro- 
vision which was put in the Constitution at the time of seces- 
sion, connecting the State with the Confederate States instead 
of with the United States as its Federal head, is wholly im- 
material to the present purpose. On the one theory it was 
simply void, and left the organization of the State^ the Constitu- 
tion, and the constitutional constituency intact. On the other 
theory, being valid, it modified but did not impair the integi'ity 
of the State organization. All this follows from, or rather is 
comprehended in, the one proposition that these ten States 
have never lost their character as States. 

Each of these ten States being a State at the close of the war 
in 1865, stands now de jure just as it stood then ; unless it has 
since that time been changed by the action of its constitutional 
constituency. I think each of them ivas so changed in the lat- 



232 APPENDIX. 

ter part of that same year. In eacli of them a Convention was 
elected by a large and nnquestionable majority of the constitu- 
tional constituency (although a portion of them were excluded 
from voting) for the purpose of modifying the Constitution. 
These Conventions repealed the ordinance of secession, abol- 
ished slavery, and made some other changes in the several 
Constitutions, but (in most of the States) left the constitutional 
constituencies just as they stood before. In conformity with 
the Constitutions, as last modified by those Conventions, each 
of the States was speedily provided with a complete govern- 
ment, consisting of a legislative, executive, and judicial depart- 
ment. It was by the Legislatures thus formed that the Thir- 
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
abolishing slavery, was ratified. 

Since that time no change has been made in the organiza- 
tion of any of these States, with the cooperation or concurrence 
of the. constitutional constituencies. Only very small minorities 
of the constitutional constituencies have cooperated in the work 
of reconstruction. It is a notorious and unquestionable fact, 
that an overwhelming majority of them in each of the States 
have been steadily and unswervingly opposed to it, and have 
voted against it, whenever they have voted at all. 

The clear result, in my judgment, is that each of these 
States now stands de jure just as she was left by the action of 
her Convention in 1865, with a complete government, formed 
under the Constitution of that year, including a Legislature 
which still constitutionally exists, and is capable of assembling 
any day, if it were only allowed to do so by the withdrawal of 
the bayonet. But she stands de facto suppressed, by a govern- 
ment originated and imposed on her by an external power, and 
supported alone by the bayonet. Such a government is the 
embodiment of anti-republicanism and despotism. Under just 
such a government Ireland is writhing and Poland is crushed. 

Is it not now demonstrated that the bodies which ratified the 
so-called Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendmeiits, in the name 
of these ten States, were the revolutionary products of external 
force and fraud, displacing the true Legislatures which alone 
could have given a constitutional ratification ? 



LINTON STEPHENS ON EECONSTRUOTION. 233 

These so-called amendments, then, have been neither eon- 
stitntionally proposed nor constitutionally ratified. JIow can 
thej form parts of the Constitution ? 

A successful answer to this question would long ago have 
brought that peace and harmony which can never come from 
might overbearing right. Instead of giving such an answer, 
the authors of these measures have sought to drown reason and 
argument in clamorous charges of violence and revolution 
against the victims, not the perpetrators, of those crimes. 

But an answer has at last been attempted from an unex- 
pected quarter. Strangely enough, it comes from one who has 
greatly distinguished himself by the vigor and ability with 
which he has denounced the whole scheme of reconstruction as 
a revolutionary usurpation and nullity. And, still more strange- 
ly, he adheres to that denunciation, while now arguing that 
these so-called amendments, the creatures and culminatino- 
points of that reconstruction scheme, are valid parts of the CoiS 
stitution. Such a conclusion from such a beginning! And yet 
he is hailed by his new allies as a very Daniel conie unto judg- 
ment. They were in a sore strait for an argument. 

He says these so-called amendments have become parts of 
the Constitution, because they have been proclaimed as such, 
by the power which, under the Constitution, has the "jurisdic- 
tion " to proclaim amendments. 

There has been much said, sir, about issues that are 
" dead ; " surely here is one that is not only alive but very live- 
ly. ^ Let Americans hear and mark it ! The Constitution of the 
United States can be changed, can be subverted by Presiden- 
tial proclamation ! ! I once knew a man vvdiose motto was that 
a lie, well told, was better than the truth, because, he said, 
truth was a stubborn, unmanageable thing, but a lie' in the 
hands of a genius could be fitted exactly to the exigencies of 
the case. But even he admitted that the lie must be well told, 
or it would not serve. If it should appear to be a lie, it 
would be turned from a thing of power into a thing for con- 
ternpt. There has been progress, sir, since that man taught. 
It is now discovered that a hnoion, proven lie is as good as "the 
truth, provided it can only get "proclaimed" by a power hav- 



234 APPENDIX. 

ing "jurisdiction" to proclaim it!! I, sir, know of no power 
— either on the earth, or above it, or under it — that has "juris- 
diction " to " proclaim " lies ! ! Nay, sir, I know of no power 
which has jurisdiction to proclaim amendments to the Constitu- 
tion. According to my reading of that instrument, amend- 
ments constitutionally proposed " shall be valid to all intents 
and pm'poses as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the 
Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Con- 
ventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode 
of ratification may be proposed by the Congress." The ratifi- 
cation by three-fourths of the States, acting through their Legis- 
latures or their Conventions, sets the seal of validity on the 
amendment and makes it a part of the Constitution. Nothing 
else can do it. It must be a true ratification, by a true Legis- 
lature, or a true Convention of the State. A false ratification 
by a true Legislature of the State will not do. A true ratifica- 
tion by a spurious Legislature will not do. The validity of the 
amendment, and its authority as a part of the Constitution, are 
made to depend upon the historic truth of its ratification as re- 
quired by the Constitution. Proclamations of falsehoods from 
Presidents, or from anybody else, have nothing to do with the 
subject. This is plain doctrine, drawn fi'om the Constitution 
itself. The validity of the Constitution in all its parts depends 
upon the facts of their history. 

But, according to this new discovery, the President of the 
United States can subvert the whole Constitution, and make 
himself a legal and valid autocrat, by simply " proclaiming " 
that an amendment to the Constitution to that efiect has been 
proposed by two-thirds of each house of Congress, and ratified 
by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States ; although it 
may be known of all men that there is not one word of truth in 
the proclamation. The President of the United States can 
legally convert himself into an autocrat by his own proclama- 
tion. Tlieories are quickly put into practice in these days. Let 
the country beware ! ! 

We are also told by this new Daniel, not only that the usur- 
pation has become obligatory by its success, but there is no 
hope of getting rid of it : for he says it caijnot be changed with- 



LINTON STEPHENS ON EEOONSTRUCTION. 235 

out another amendment, ratified by three-fourths of the States, 
and that there is no prospect of getting these three-fourths. 
Wonderful ! ^Yhy, he himself has taught us that the whole 
thing may be accomplished by a Presidential proclamation. 
We have only to elect a Democratic President, and let him 
"proclaim" that a new amendment, abolishing the Fourteenth 
and Fifteenth, has been duly proposed and duly ratified ; and 
the thing is done. That, sir, would be the way taught by this 
new light ; but it would never be my way. I do not propose 
to walk in the ways of falsehood. I prefer truth ; because it is 
nobler, grander. I believe also that, when it is supported by 
true and bold men, it is always more powerful. My way would 
be to elect a Democratic President; and let him treat the 
usurpation as a usurpation and a nullity ; and let him with- 
draw the bayonet, and " proclaim " that the revolutionary 
governments in these ten States would not be supported by 
him, but that the constitutional Eepublican Governments which 
now exist here would be left free to rise from their state of 
forcible repressiou, and do their natural and legitimate work 
of true restoration, real peace, sincere and cordial fraternity. 
The whole problem is solved by the simple withdrawal of the 
bayonet. 

I have now shown that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 
Amendments do not form any part of the Constitution ; and 
thus have made good my first position, that the whole Enforce- 
ment Act, which depends solely upon them for its validity, is 
not a law, but a mere legal nullity. 

My second position is that, even if the so-called Fourteenth 
and Fifteenth Amendments were valid, yet all those parts of 
the Enforcement Act claimed as applicable to my case are ut- 
terly " outside " of them, and (being confessedly outside of the 
Constitution, apart from them) are unconstitutional, and not 
binding as law. 

The Fourteenth Amendment, and the small part of the 
Enforcement Act relating to it, have no relevancy to this pros- 
ecution, and I shall say nothing further about them. 

Those parts of the Act claimed as applicable to my case, rest 
solely upon the Fifteenth for their validity ; and, in order to 



236 APPENDIX. 

see whether they are outside of it or not, it becomes necessary 
to know what are the terms and extent of that Amendment. 

The effect of its terms is strangely misapprehended. It 
seems to be regarded as a thing which, by its terms, secures the 
right of suffrage to the negro, and empowers Congress to en- 
force that right. This is a total and most dangerous mistake. 
Here is the Amendment. It is not longer than the first joint 
of my little finger : 

* " Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall 
not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on ac- 
count of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 

" Sec. 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by ap- 
propriate legislation." 

This is the whole of it. ISTow, sir, I defy refutation, when 
I affirm that, by these terms, the right of suffrage is not con- 
ferred upon, nor secured to, any person or class of persons 
whomsoever. The whole is simply a prohibition on the United 
States, and the several States. The United States, in legislat- 
ing for the District of Columbia or a Territory, and the several 
States in regulating their suffrage, each for herself, are pro- 
hibited from denying it to anybody, or abridging its exercise 
on either one of the three grounds — race, color, or previous 
condition of servitude — but are left perfectly free to abridge it 
or deny it on any other ground whatsoever — sex, female or 
male, ignorance or intelligence, poverty or wealth, crime or 
virtue, or any other of an innumerable multitude of other 
grounds. In point of fact, the right is denied, both by the 
United States and by each one of the several States, on many 
of these other grounds, and the denial is enforced under heavy 
penalties, not only by the laws of the States, but by this very 
Enforcement Act itself. To say that the right is conferred on 
or secured to anybody, because it cannot be denied for any one 
or all of three reasons out of an indefinite number of possible 
and usual reasons, is simply absurd. As well say that a plat 
of ground is fenced or secured from intrusion by putting a wall 
on one of its many sides, leaving all tlie other sides perfectly 
open. A right is not conferred or secured by a law, when it 
can be denied without a violation of that law. 



LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTEUCTION. 237 

This brings me to tlie crucial test of my second position. 
Wlietlier I have violated any provisions of the Enforcement 
Act or not, it is at least certain that I have oiot violated the 
Fifteenth Amendment. It is affirmatively proven, by the tes- 
timony of the two prosecutors in this case — the two negro 
managers of election — that I did not object to, or in any man- 
ner interfere with, any vote on the ground of either race, color, 
or previous condition of servitude. It is manifest, then, that 
if I have violated any part or parts of the Enforcement Act, 
such part or parts are " outside " of the Amendment, and un- 
authorized by it, since I have not violated the Amendment 
itself. I have not violated the Amendmant, even if its pro- 
hibition reached private citizens, instead of being confined, 
as it plainly is, to the United States and the States sever- 
ally. 

The truth is, that far the greater part of the Enforcement 
Act is " outside" of the Amendments which it professes to en- 
force. This act presents another live and very lively issue to 
the people of this country ; and already are the thunders of 
opposition heard from Republican, as well as from Democratic 
quarters. Under the pretence of restraining the United States 
and the several States from denying or abridging the right of 
suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of 
servitude, this act takes control of the general and local elec- 
tions in all the States — seizing the whole political power of the 
country, and wielding it by the bayonet ; and fills np pages of 
the statute book with new offences and hea\^ penalties levelled, 
not against the United States or the several States, or their offi- 
cers by whom alone the Fifteenth Amendment can possibly be 
violated, but against private citizens. The Alien and Sedition 
Acts, which, by the power of their recoil, exterminated their 
authors, were not equal to this act either in the nakedness or 
the danger of their usurpation. If this act shall prevail and 
abide as law, then our heritage of local self-government, lost to 
us, will pass into history, and there stand out forever a glory to 
the noble sires who wrung it from one tyranny, and a shame to 
the degenerate sons who surrendered it to another. 

My third and last position is, that even if the Enforcment 



238 APPENDIX. 

Act were valid in all its parts, yet I have not violated any one 
of them. I am accused under its 5th and 19th sections. 

The 5th provides a penalty against " preventing, hindering, 
controlling, or intimidating, or attempting to prevent, hinder, 
control, or intimidate," any person from voting " to whom the 
right of suffrage is secured or guaranteed by the Fifteenth 
Amendment." I have already demonstrated that the Fifteenth 
Amendment secures or guarantees the right of suffrage to no- 
body whomsoever. It is impossible, therefore, that I am, or 
that anybody ever can be, guilty under that section. 

But again : the testimony utterly fails to show that I inter- 
fered in any way with the voting of any person legally entitled 
to vote, or, indeed, with the voting of any person whomsoever. 
It was incumbent upon the prosecution to show what persons, 
if any ; and that they were persons entitled to vote. The En- 
forcement Act itself inflicts a penalty on all persons who vote 
illegally ; and, of course, cannot intend to punish the preven- 
tion or hindrance of illegal voting. The attempted proof as to 
my interference with voters, relates to four persons only. It 
fails to show that either one of the four was a person entitled to 
vote. It fails to show that three of them did not actually vote. 
It fails to show that any one of them offered to vote or evien 
desired to do so. It fails to show that any one of them heard 
me make a single remark, saw me do a single act, or was even 
in my presence from the beginning to the end of the three 
days' election. 

As to the remark which I made to a small crowd about 
prosecuting all. who should vote without having paid their 
taxes, I have this to say : In the first place, it is not shown who 
composed that crowd, nor that a single one of them was a per- 
son entitled to vote. In the next place, the remark was a law- 
ful one ; for it was simply the declaration of an intention, not 
to interfere with legal voters, but to prosecute criminals / and 
therefore cannot be tortured into a threat in any legal or crimi- 
nal sense of that word. A threat, to be criminal, must be the 
declaration of an intention to do some unlawful act ; and it 
never can be unlawful to appeal to the laws. 

I pass to the charge, under the 19th section, that I inter- 



LINTOI^ STEPHEN'S ON EECON"STRUCTION. 239 

fered with the managers of election in the discharge of their 
duties, by causing their arrest under judicial warrant. That 
part of the 19th section which is invoked against me is in these 
words : " Or interfere in any manner with any officer of said 
elections in the discharge of his duties." 

My first answer to this charge is, that the managers were 
arrested, not in the discharge of their duties, but in the viola- 
tion of one of the most important of them — one prescribed not 
only by the Constitution of the State, but by this very Enforce- 
ment Act itself; for the act made it their duty to reject all 
illegal votes, and provided a penalty for receiving them. These 
managers had received and were still receiving the votes of 
persons who had not paid their taxes of the year next preceding 
the election, as required by the Constitution of this State. The 
testimony shows that this fact was fully proven, and not denied 
by them, on the commitment trial before the magistrate. The 
reply to it then was, and now is, not a denial, but a justifica- 
tion on two grounds. One of these grounds was, that the oath 
which they had taken, under the Akerman Election Act, re- 
quired them to let every person vote, who was of apparent full 
age, was a resident of the county, and had not previously voted 
in that election. They said then, and it is now said again here, 
that they could not inquire into the non-payment of taxes or 
any other Constitutional disqualification for voting, except only 
non-age, non-residence, and previous voting in that election. 
And yet, a man who was of full age, and a resident of the 
county, and who had not previously voted, was excluded by 
these same managers on the ground that he was a convicted 
felon. Their own action in excluding the felon is utterly in- 
consistent with their construction of the obligation of their oath. 
The oath, as construed by them, and now construed here 
by the prosecuting attorney, is in plain conflict with the Con- 
stitution, and is, therefore, void, and could not relieve them 
from their Constitutional duty to exclude all who had not paid 
their taxes. The first ground of the managers' justification 
therefore fails. 

Their other ground was, that the unpaid tax of those whom 
they had allowed to vote without payment of taxes, was only 



240 APPENDIX. 

poll tax, and tliat tlie poll tax had been declared by an act of 
the Legislature to be illegal and unwarranted by the Constitu- 
tion, and its further collection suspended. 

^ The fact that it was only poll tax does not appear from the 
evidence before your Honor, but I admit it to be true. I did 
not come here to quibble. I am here to justify my conduct 
under the laiv, on the truth as it exists, whether proven here or 
not. My answer is, that this declaratory act of the Legislature 
is false, unconstitutional, null and void. The act is\ut the 
opinion of the Legislature, concerning the constitutionality of a 
previous act of 1809, imposing the poll tax for that year. That 
act is before me, imposing a poll tax of one dollar per head "for 
educational purposes," using the very words which are used by 
the Constitution itself in defining the pui-pose for which poll 
taxes may be imposed. ISTow, sir, the question which I ask is, 
what it is that makes this act "illegal" or unwarranted by the 
Constitution ? Surely, it is not made so by the subsequent dec- 
laration of the Legislature, put forth just before the election, 
to serve a palpable, fraudulent, party purpose. 

The Legislature is not a Court ; but on the contrary it is 
exjDressly prohibited by the Constitution from exercising judi- 
cial functions, and its declarations concerning the constitutional- 
ity of Legislative acts, have no more authority than those of 
private citizens. The single question, then, is whether the 
declaration in this case is true. The Legislature assigned its 
reason for the opinion it gave. What is that reason ? It is 
that the Constitution limits the imposition of poll taxes to 
educational purposes ; and that when the poll tax in question 
was imposed, there was no system of common schools or educa- 
tional purpose to which it could be applied. Therefore, they 
said its imposition was " illegal and unwarranted by the Con- 
stitution." They said it was unwarranted by the Constitution 
to provide the money before organizing the schools to which 
the money was to be applied ; that is to say, the only Consti- 
tutional way to organize the schools was to go in debt for 
them ! I lack words, sir, to properly characterize the silliness 
of this reason. 

But, curiously enough, the Constitution itself took the very 



LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 241 

coiirse, wliich these sapient legislators declared to be illegal ^iid 
unwarranted by the Constitution. It provided money and 
devoted it to these very Common Schools, which were still in 
the womb of the future at the time of its adoption. It dedicated 
to that purpose the whole educational fund which was then on 
hand. Therefore, I say, this declaratory act is not only false, 
but is in the very teeth of the Constitution itself. Mark you, 
sir, it did not repeal nor attempt to repeal the poll tax ; it only 
suspended its collection. But, I say, if it had been a repeal in 
terms, instead of a mere suspension, it could not change the 
case, as to the right of a person to vote without having paid the 
tax. The Constitutional requirement is, that "he shall have 
paid all taxes which may have been required of him, and which 
he may have had an opportunity of paying agreeably to law for 
the year next preceding the election." The poll tax was re- 
quired in April, 18G0, and continued to be required, up to the 
passage of the aforesaid false declaratory act, in October, 1870 
—a year and a-half. During all that period tax-payers had 
" opportunity " to pay it. On the day. of the election, then, 
any man who hid not paid his poll tax for 1869, stood in the 
position of not having paid a tax which had been required of 
him, and which he had had very many opportunities of paying 
agreeably to law. He stood clearly within the letter of the 
Constitutional disqualification for voting. He stood also within 
its reason and spirit, for its true intention- was to discriminate 
against the citizen who should not have discharged a public 
duty for the year next preceding the election. ISTothing but 
payment could remove from him the character of a public delin- 
quent. Legislative remission of the tax cannot serve the pur- 
pose, for he still stands after that as a man who has failed in a 
jniUic duty. The most that can be said for him is, that after 
the repeal, the tax ceased to be required of him ; but the only 
material facts — that it had leen required, and could have been 
paid, but had 7iot been paid — remain unaltered. 

The managers, then, in receiving the votes of persons who 

had not paid their poll tax, were not in " the discharge of their 

duties." "WTicther they thought so, is not the question. If they 

were really wrong, then I was 7ight, and surely I am not to be 

16 



242 APPENDIX. 

piinfelied for lemg o'ight. There was no interference witli tliem 
in the discharge of their duties. 

But again : even if I were wrong in the opinion which I 
entertained of their duty, yet I did not interfere wath them 
unlaiiyfully. The whole context of, that clanse, in the 19th 
section, under which I am accused, shows that tlie interference 
contemplated is an unlawful interference ; especially the words 
which come immediately after it — " or by any of such means or 
other unlawful means," etc. This word " other " shows conclu- 
sively, that all the means contemplated were only such as were 
of an unlawful character. This would be implied in construing 
any penal statute, even if it were not expressed ; for the univer- 
sal rule of construction for penal statutes is, to construe strictly 
against the prosecution, and liberally in favor of the accused. 
Is it possible that any Judge can have the hardihood to hold 
that it was the intention of this Enforcement Act to imj^art to 
managers of election the sacred character of Eastern Brahmins, 
making them too holy to be touched even for their crimes? 
Surely it was not intended to give them greater sanctity than 
belongs to Peers of the British Parliament, or to legislators in 
our own country while engaged in legislation. Notwithstand- 
ing all the high privileges accorded to them, all of these are 
subject to arrest in any place, at any moment, under a warrant 
charging breach of the peace or felony. Was it intended to 
protect these managers from immediate accountability for all 
felonies which they might commit during three whole days ? 
Until this shall be held as the intention of the Enforcement Act, 
it is impossible to maintain that I have violated it in any par- 
ticular whatever. 

The Constitution declares that " the right of the citizen to 
appeal to the courts shall never be impaired." My whole 
oifence, sir, is this : that I apj>ealecl to a court of com])etent juris- 
diction. I devoutly believed I was right in my opinion of the 
law. I believe so now. But, whether I was right or wrong in 
my oipinion^ who will dare to say that I was wrong in testing 
that opinion, not by the strong hand, but by appealing to a 
court appointed by the Constitution for the very purjDOse of 
deciding the question? That court decided that I was right:' 



LINTOI^ STEPHENS ON EECONSTEUOTIOK 213 

and tlie " interference" wliicli followed, sir, was tlie interference, 
not of myself, but of tlie laio, as expounded and administered 
by a judicial tribunal. Moreover, sir, the decision of that tri- 
bunal stands as the law of tlie case, until it shall be reversed 
according to law. These managers were charged with felony 
under the laws of this State. Was it a crime for me to seek a 
judicial inquiry into the truth or probability of such a charge ? 
I suspect, sir, that my real crime, in the estimation of my prose- 
cutors, is, that the judicial interj)Osition invoked by me had 
the effect of preventing numerous repetitions of a crime which 
would have done signal service to ihciv political pm^ty. 

If angry power demands a sacrifice from those who have 
thwarted its fraudulent purposes, I feel honored, sir, in being 
selected as the victim. If my suflering could arouse my coun- 
trymen to a just and lofty indignation against the despotism 
which, in attacking me, is but assailing law, order, and consti- 
tutional government, I would not shrink from the sacrifice, 
though my hlood should be required instead of my liberty. 



II. 

Speech of Hon. Lixton" Stephens, at the City Hall in Au- 
gusta, Ga., on the night of the 18th of February, 1871. 

Fellow-Citizens : It was one of the wisest sayings of a 
very wise man, that " the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." 
This maxim of wisdom is peculiarly applicable to the present 
time. Ten States of this Union are to-night under revolution- 
ary governments", originated and imposed upon them by an ex- 
ternal power and supported only by the bayonet. These revo- 
lutionary governments displace, repress, and, for the time, 
suppress the regular, republican, constitutional governments 
which have existed here all the while with an unbroken succes- 
sion. These revolutionary governments are in the hands of 
carpet-baggers and scalawags, who treat the laws of their own 
origination with disregardful contempt ; and, under the forms 



244 APPENDIX. 

of official authority, heap upon our people injuries and insults 
wLicli never before were borne by men born and bred and edu- 
cated in the principles of Liberty. Shameless plunder, malig- 
nant slander, corrupt favoritism, impunity for crimes when 
committed by partisans of the Government, gigantic extension 
of the credit of the States to penniless adventurers who come 
among us under the false and fraudulent plea of " developing 
our resources," robbery of the very negroes who are sought to 
be used as the chief instrument of upholding this gigantic sys- 
tem of revolutionary fraud and force — these are the fruits of 
these revolutionary governments. These are the products of 
reconstruction. This is the " Situation ! " And yet there are 
those who say : " Let us accept the situation." In the last 
presidential campaign we heard the potent words : " Let us 
have Peace." They had their effect. They carried the presi- 
dential election. Tet wise men then knew, as all men now 
know, that they were a delusion and a snare. " Let us have 
peace ! " It Ttieant that freemen, with their necks under the 
heel of despotism, should remain submissive and quiet. Buch 
a peace Turkey has! Such a peace Poland has! Stich a 
peace, thank God, Ireland refuses to have ! Ko people trained 
in the principles of liberty will ever accept of any peace that 
is not founded on liberty. Tyrants and despots may recon- 
struct, and re-reconstruct, and re-re-reconstruct ad infinitum / 
but they will never have peace from American-born freemen 
until they give them their rights. 

"What is really expected by these people who cry " Peace," 
and " Accept the Situation ? " Are they silly enough to sup- 
pose that there can be any pause or limit to the career of usur- 
pation ? Does anybody need to be told that usurpation is ^7^- 
satidble f "When did it ever cry — enough ? Concede it an 
inch, and it will always take an ell. — The only way for earnest 
men to deal with usurpation is to make it disgorge all its ill- 
gotten acquisitions. These .peace men call themselves Con- 
servatives. To conserve means, to preserve what we have. 
If what we have tiow is to be preserved, it will prove the sure 
instrument of destroying every thing that is worth preserva- 
tion. The present status, if it is to be " accepted," is enough 



LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 245 

to overthrow, and will certainly overthrow, the whole system 
of constitutional government. It is just the fulcrum which 
Archimedes wanted to move the world. Let the usurpation ists 
retain, what they have already usurped, and their whole de- 
sign will inevitably be accomplished. — The wrongs of usurpa- 
tions have been borne by us with a patience which has only 
encouraged, not checked its career. How can men expect it 
to pause, when it is now daily going on with new and Titanic 
strides ? The same revolutionary violence which brought forth 
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth so-called Amendments of the 
Constitution is daily hatching and spawning new usurpations 
and despotisms. — One of these is the late Enforcement Act of 
Congress, which professes to be based on these revolutionary 
amendments for its authority. It has but little relation to the 
Fourteenth, being chiefly occupied with its professed intention 
to carry out the Fifteenth. 

If this Fifteenth Amendment were granted to be valid, as 
it is not and never should be, yet a consideration of its terms 
will show how immense is the usurpation of the Enforcement 
Act in the professed object of carrying it out. 

The Fifteenth Amendment is simply a prohibition on the 
United States and the several States. It relates to nobody 
else, touches nobody else. It prohibits the United States and 
the several States (in regulating suffrage in cases where they 
respectively have the right to regulate it) from denying it or 
abridging it on account of any one of three reasons: race, 
color, previous condition of servitude ; leaving them perfectly 
free to abridge it or deny it on account of an indefinite number 
of other reasons. It is simply a prohibition upon the charac- 
acter of laws which may be passed by the United States or 
the several States. If acts are passed against the prohibition 
(granting the prohibition itself to be valid) they would be 
void ; and the remedy — the only appropriate or admissible 
remedy — would be to appeal to the courts and have them pro- 
nounced void. It is exactly analogous to the prohibitions on 
the States in the original Constitution — that " no State shall 
coin money ; emit bills of credit ; make anything but gold and 
silver coin a tender in payment of debts ; pass any bill of at- 



246 APPENDIX. 

taindei', or ex ;post facto law, or law impairing- the obligation 
of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." "Who ever 
dreamed that these prohibitions on the States gave Congress 
the power to control the whole subject of money, and seize all 
the money of the country into its own hands ; to take control 
of the whole subject of credit, and regulate it in all its ramifi- 
cations ; to take charge of the whole subject of debts, and the 
whole subject of bills of attainder, and ex jpost facto laws ; and 
the whole subject of contracts ; and the whole subject of titles 
of nobility % "Who ever dreamed that Congress could enforce 
these prohibitions on States by heavy penal statutes against 
private citizens ? Who ever dreamed that Congress could en- 
force the prohibition against State laws impairing the obliga- 
tion of contracts, by making it a felony for any citizen to seek 
the benefit of relief acts passed by the States ? ]^ay, more. 
Is this prohibition against denying or abridging the right of 
suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of 
servitude, any more obligatory, or does it confer upon Congress 
any more power than the provision in the original Constitu- 
tion defining who shall be entitled to vote for President, Yice- 
President, and members of Congress, making them the same 
in each State as electors for the most numerous branch of the 
Legislature in that State ? And yet who ever dreamed that 
this positive provision of the Constitution gave Congress pow- 
er over the whole subject of electors and elections in the 
States, lest, perad venture, some State might pass a law violat- 
ing that provision ? The attempt on the part of Congress to 
exercise any such powers as tliese under the prohibitions on 
the States would have been regarded at any time before the 
late war as a usurpation and an utter nullity ; and any party 
that might have supported the criminal and traitorous attempt 
would have been swept into swift annihilation. And yet, un- 
der this mere negative provision of the Fifteenth (so-called) 
Amendment, Congress, by this Enforcement Act, has taken in- 
to its own charge the elections in all the States, and prescribes 
who shall and who shall not vote. I see by the papers of to- 
day that they are not content with this act, enormous as it is 
in its usurpation, but that one House of Congress has passed 



LINTON STEPHENS ON EECONSTEUCTION. 217 

an act greatly enlarging the usurpation, providing for a Uni- 
ted States officer to supervise tlie elections in each State, with 
large judicial powers, and with power to use the La3'onet at 
liis own discretion. This is pausing in tlie career of usurpa- 
tion ! 

As a very appropriate accompaniment of this enlarged En- 
forcement Act, Mr. Attorney-General Akerman recommends 
the establishment of United States penitentiaries and jails in 
all the States. All our Presidents, from Washington down 
to the time of the recent war, found ample accommodation for 
all their prisoners in the prisons of the States under State visi- 
tation, inspection, and control. This dynasty needs bastiles of 
its own, to be filled with the political prisoners, who may be 
expected to come in large numbers as the product of the new 
and ever-increasing despotic usurpations ; and to be subject to 
no \asitation or interference but that of the imperial guard. 
Political prosecutions are not confined to me, nor to this State. 
A cry comes up against them from Tennessee also, and from 
other States. They are intended to becomS an institution^ 
and the bastiles form an indispensable part of the institution. 
And yet all this is done while the right of sufii'age is neither 
denied nor abridged, on account either of color, race, or previ- 
ous condition of servitude, by the United States, or by any 
State, or anywhere in the Union. 

Let us look at a little more of the pausing I I see a bill 
has been introduced into Congress to appoint a Ku Klux Com- 
missioner for every county in the Southern States, he also to 
be armed with large judicial powers and with the bayonet — to 
administer the laws over the people of the States in relation to 
assaults and batteries, murders, trespasses, and all crimes, real 
and pretended, which can be gathered under the hundred- 
headed hydra of " Outrages." This, I suppose, is a part of the 
new " outrage programme " which has been so brilliantly in- 
augurated under the auspices of an Outrage Message and a 
Congressional Outrage Committee. Outrages they are, indeed ! 
A Congressional committee to investigate the condition of 
States, and detei*mine, forsooth, whether their constituencies 
are " worthy " to be represented in Congress ! This is the 



248 APPENDIX. 

question wliicli General Butler lias sprung as to the constitu- 
ency of this very Congressional District — whether they are 
"worthy" to be represented. True, our Re^Dresentative was 
received under the ])rima facie case made by his certificate of 
• election ; but the great fundamental question, as to the worthi- 
ness of our constituency, was reserved for future decision. 
What that decision may be, who can tell ? This question, 
together with divers other important matters, is to be investi- 
gated, in the mean time, by the Congressional Outrage Com- 
mittee. Such a committee, for such a purpose, before the 
war, would have raised a howl of derision and indignation 
throughout the land. They .would raise it now if this investi- 
gation were to be applied to any Northern State of this Union. 
Yet, when they shall come to us (if they shall see fit to make 
us a visitation), bearing the badges of our degradation, we shall 
be accounted as very disloyal, rebellious, and outrageous, if we 
do not bow and smile, and beg them to do us the honor of en- 
tering into the bosoms of our families. 

I have somellhing further to say about these outrages which 
form the chief capital of those who habitually seek to inflame 
the minds of the North against their Southern brethren, to sup- 
port them in re-re-reconstruction, which are to be used as the 
instrument of overthrowing the Constitution, abolishing the 
States and the ballot, and consolidating a grand central mili- 
tary despotism. 

The situation of these Southern States under reconstruction 
has been so extraordinary that it would be wonderful indeed if 
disorders and violations of law had not been unusually multi- 
plied. They are the necessary product of the system. The 
citizens generally have striven to keep them down, while the 
revolutionary governments, not only upturning the political 
status, but also, almost inverting the social, have been the most 
potent influence in producing these disorders. Under these 
governments, administered by carpet-baggers, scalawags, and 
negroes, the pardoning power has been made the shameless 
instrument of recruiting their party, and of making the people 
despair of an impartial administration of the laws. I will men- 
tion a striking instance out of a multitude which are notorious. 



LINTON STEPHENS ON EECONSTRUCTION. 249 

Fourteen negroes in Hancock County were convicted of an 
assault witli intent to murder. The proof was a confession in 
every case, corroborated by other most satisfactory evidence. 
This proof showed that the crowd went to a man's house be- 
tween midnight and day, yeJHng like savages, and swearing 
they would kill him. They broke down his door and shot into 
his house, wounding himself, and lodging a load of shot in the 
bedstead just over the head of his wife. He saved his life only 
by making his escape through the floor. This was all done 
without provocation. They suspected that this man, March- 
man, was concerned in the killing of a negro, who had been 
killed some time before, by some person or persons unknown. 
The proof on the trial showed that their suspicion was utterly 
groundless, and that when the negro was killed, Marchman was 
at home, and coidd not possibly have known any thing about it. 
They acted on the mere wild suspicion of excited ignorance. 
They had a fair trial and were defended by very able counsel. 
The verdict of conviction was publicly approved by Judge An- 
drews, whom you know to be an appointee of Governor Bullock, 
and a member of the Republican party. Yet all of these four- 
teen were speedily pardoned out of the penitentiary by Gover- 
nor-Bullock, and turned loose upon an outraged people. One 
of them was very soon put back into the penitentiary for a 
new oifence in an adjoining county. This is a specimen, and 
but a specimen, of the outrages which we suffer. 

The carpet-baggers and scalawags, who do most to engen- 
der strife between the races and produce outrages, speak only 
of those which are committed on one side. They are as silent 
as the grave about those incited by themselves, and perpetrated 
by their ignorant and brutal tools. 

I have yet one other remark to make about these outrages. 
I know of none where a jury has failed to convict when the 
guilty party, white or black, was shown by satisfactory p]:oof ; 
and I know of no place, Iforth or South, where convictions are 
had, or would be desirable, without proof. There have been 
foul murders committed in Boston, and nobody hurt for them. 
One notorious case of the same kind has lately occurred in New 
York city. Suppose I should say murder is done in Boston and 



250 APPENDIX. 

'New York " witli impunity." Suppose Congress should send 
an Outrage Committee to investigate Boston and New York ! 

Tlie trutli is, the general rule there is, that criminals are pun- 
ished when they are found out. The general rule here is, that 
they are punished when they are found out, and 7iot ijardoned. 

This is a truthful sketch of the situation — ^Usurpation accele- 
rating instead of pausing in its career ; revolution giving us 
wrongs, outrages, injuries, and insults instead of the protection, 
peace, ]Drosperity, and fraternity which we have a right to ex- 
pect from any government, and should certainly receive from 
our rightful constitutional governments. 

This is the situation which we are exhorted to accept. This 
is the prospect on which we are invited to repose, with assur- 
ance that usurpation will henceforth cease, and a " new depart- 
ure " will be taken in politics under the auspices of sound prin- 
ciple. The appeal is made to us on the supposition that we are 
not men, but geese. The appeal is made to the country, l^orth 
and South, upon the supposition that the country, Korth, and 
South, is composed of geese, not men. 

"Why should we accept the situation % Are not reconstruc- 
tion and all its products revolutionary, unconstitutional, and 
void? Are they not demonstrated to be so? Where is' the 
harm in calling them so ? "Where is the harm in treating them 
so ? It is said that the remedy proposed would itself be revolu- 
tionary. "What is that remedy ? It is but the ballot. The bal- 
lot, used how, and for what ? Peacefully, for the election of 
men, who, when elected, will treat the Constitution as the Con- 
stitution; spurious' interpolations upon it as spurious interpola- 
tions ; laws as laws ; nullities as nullities ; truths as truths ; 
lies as lies. The remedy is, not to perpetrate new revolution, 
but to EECEDE from the revolutionary measures of the usurpers, 
to withdraw the bayonet, and leave the constitutional govern- 
ments, which are now displaced by the revolutionary ones, to 
peacefully rise from their state of repression, and, by the re- 
sumption of their legitimate functions, solve the whole problem 
of restoration in a manner worthy of freemen, and distasteful 
only to usurpers and despots. 

The revolutionary usurpers have an impudent habit of call- 



LINTON STEPHENS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 251 

ing themselves " legitimists," and Democrats " revolutionists." 
This is but the old trick of the thief crying, "Stop thief!" 
Demonstrate to them that their measures are revolutionary and 
void, and the reply is renewed assertion of their legality and 
validity. Argument is met only by iteration and reiteration of 
the original ftilsehood. 

It is the case of the robber who has entered your house by 
violence, and has no plea for remaining there, except that he 
has got in. No man of spirit would tolerate the plea for a 
single instant, even though the robber should give the best in- 
dications of future good behavior, instead of proceeding as 
rapidly as possible to plunder your whole house, just as he is 
now actually doing. 

Centralism, like the once veiled prophet of Khorassan, is 
now unveiled. It stands revealed in all its hideousness. Who 
so depraved as to worship its deformity ? Who so dastardly as 
not to plant a dagger in its vitals? The weapons to be used 
are those of Truth and Reason. 

The Temple of Liberty is in possession of the money-chang- 
ers and the dove-sellers. They are desecrating its altars, and 
laying their unholy hands upon the very ark of the covenant. 
Nay, more ; they are undermining the very foundations of the 
temple itself; and if they are not driven out by an indignant 
people, not one stone will be left standing upon another of the 
once magnificent structure. 

Our error heretofore has been the error of silence under 
wrong. I have never counselled violence. I do not counsel it 
now. I deplore it. But I do counsel an unremitting appeal 
to argument, truth, and justice. Using these as her sword, 
and a sublime patience as her shield, the South should never 
cease to agitate, and agitate^ and agitate, until she obtains the 
righting of her wrongs, and the re-establishment of the Consti- 
tution in its purity and its beauty. 

Indications are now most promising that her people will be 
united in the resolve to recognize no alliance with any party 
that will not give us our rights. If parties wish to go into 
scrambles for offices and spoils, we will have no part nor lot with 
them. This is the seed-time of ideas for the next Presidential 



252 APPENDIX. 

election. You may rest assured tliat that election will turn 
upon ideas. Ko party can maintain itself in this country if it 
cannot defend itself by argument. !N^ever, since the close of 
the war, has the time been so auspicious as now for a candid 
hearing and ready reception of the truth in the North. Recon- 
struction was never approved there. It was merely tolerated 
and accepted as the only feasible solution of what was regarded 
as the pressing and distressing problem of restoration. It is 
now demonstrated that reconstruction is a failure and a crime ; 
and that its authors are using it, not as a means of restora- 
tion, but as a means of alienation / and that they intend to 
use it as an instrument for overthrowing the Constitution, and 
converting this Union of States into a consolidated, despotic 
centralism. Its wrongs have heretofore been chiefly confined 
to the South. It is now laying its audacious hands upon the 
North also. There is no longer any decent concealment of its 
purpose to control the elections everywhere by the bayonet, 
and to convert our government from one of the ballot into one 
of force. This purpose can be arrested and defeated only by 
the intelligence and energy of public opinion. Public opinion 
will be equal to the occasion. When the Boston Port Bill was 
passed, Virginia raised the cry : " The cause of Boston is the 
cause of us all ; " and the cry was caught up by all the States, 
and kindled them all with a flame of enthusiasm. The cry now 
is : " The cause of the Constitution is the cause of us all ; " 
and Boston herself will not fail to respond to it. The spirit of 
liberty is not dead in the land where the battles of the Pevolu- 
tion are commemorated by monuments and by literature. Its 
echoes yet linger in Faneuil Hall ; and some Otis, or Adams, 
or Webster will wake them with new power and new glory. 

It is also now demonstrated that the supposed difficult 
problem of restoration finds its natural and happy solution 
in receding from revolution and returning to the Constitution. 

The party that gives this platform to the country in the 
next Presidential campaign, and puts candidates upon it ear- 
nestly devoted to its success, will be irresistible in position and 
in argument ; and, therefore, will carry the country. 

It will, at all events, have the undying gratitude of the 



EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 253 

South. She, at least, can stand nowhere else. Any other 
position for her is forbidden alike by self-respect and self-j)res- 
ervation. And what is now her position must very soon in- 
evitably be the position of all the States. 



III. 



Letter of Ex-Goveenoe Chaeles J. Jenkins to IIis Excel- 
lency James M. Smith, Peesent Goveenoe of Geoegia. 

Augusta, Ga., March 15, 1872. 

His Excellency, James If. Smith : 

Sm : — Since my removal from the office which you now hold, 
in January, 1868, by Major-General Meade, of the United 
States Army, commanding Department of Georgia, I have re- 
frained from communication with the de facto government of 
the State. 

Had there been no interference of the Federal Govern- 
ment, my term of office would have expired in November, 
1867, and there would then have been assembled a Legislatm'e 
to whom I would have rendered an account of my steward- 
ship, accompanied by the usual reports of the Treasurer and 
Comptroller-General for that year. Such a communication, 
with like accompaniments for the preceding year, had been 
submitted to the General Assembly at their second session in 
!N"ovember, 1866. There having been neither Governor nor 
Legislature elected in 1867, I, under a provision of the Con- 
stitution, held over ; but there was no Legislative Assembly. 
From the time of my removal until the installation of the 
present Governor and Legislature, those departments have not, 
in my judgment, been filled by persons rightfully representing 
the people of Georgia or faithfully guarding their interests. 

I am informed that a committee appointed for that purpose 
by the Legislature convened in 1868, examined the books and 
accounts of Mr. Treasurer Jones for tlie last year of my ad- 
ministration, and reported them correct. 



254 APPENDIX. 

I desire, however, to make a formal representation of cer- 
tain transactions during my official term, of which no account 
has been given, and some of which have been grossly misrepre- 
sented to the public. 

Such a communication to a State Executive, from a prede- 
cessor, is, I know, unusual, if not unprecedented ; but I trust 
you will find in the circumstances, heretofore and now sur- 
rounding me, a justification of it, and that you will kindly 
place it on file, with the archives of the State, where it may 
hereafter be accessible for reference if desirable. 

I need scarcely remark that, owing to the suspension of 
the State government at the close of the war — serious compli- 
cations with the Federal government resulting from that con- 
flict — the utter exhaustion of our treasury, the impoverished 
condition of our people, and the interference by Congressional 
legislation with the State government first inaugurated after 
the war, my administration was fraught with difficulty, re- 
sponsibility, and anxiety. "When I entered upon the duties of 
the office there was no money in the treasury — there were out- 
standing liabilities of Governor Brown's last term (owing to 
his removal by the United States Government several months 
before its constitutional end) — debts contracted by Provisional 
Governor Johnson, to carry on the government and the ex- 
penses of the Convention of 1865, provided for by temporary 
loans. There were also ante-war bonds, and interest coupons 
of considerable amount which matured during and after the 
war — the expenses of the Legislature which came in with me, 
and the accruing demands of the civil list. The bed and 
track of the Western & Atlantic Railroad were in a dilapidated 
condition, its depots and bridges in a great measure destroyed, 
and its rolling stock partly lost or destroyed, and partly worn 
out and valueless. Its Superintendent under Provisional Gov- 
ernor Johnson, with his approval, had contracted a debt with 
the United States Government of about four hundred and 
seventy thousand dollars ($470,000) in the purchase of rolling 
stock and other railroad property, and still in these items there 
was a large deficienc3\ 

The Capitol, its grounds and furniture, and the Executive 



EX-GOV. JEXKINS OIsT EECOXSTRUCTIOX. 955 

Mansion and its furniture, required extensive repairs and re- 
newals. The Penitentiary had been partially burned and ren- 
dered insecure, requiring a large outlay in rebuilding and 
strenrrtlienins: it. 

Besides all this, there were no taxes collected in 18G5. In 
view of this condition of our financial affairs, it must, I think, 
surprise the reflecting mind that the Legislature, to meet these 
liabilities, and put the machinery of government again in mo- 
tion, resorted to the credit of the State by the issue of its 
bonds only to the amount of three millions and thirty thou- 
sand dollars ($3,030,000). 

The Convention of 1865 did, indeed, authorize the issue of 
bonds, amounting to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) 
to meet the emergencies of the hour. But these, owing to re- 
sti'ictions put upon them, were found available only for very 
short loans, and were so used, and redeemed with proceeds of 
bonds afterward authorized by the Legislature, except about 
twenty-six thousand dollars ($2G,000) which had not been pre- 
sented at the Treasury, although called in. 

There were also bonds authorized by Ttli section of the act 
of 12th March, 1866, amounting to six hundred thousand dol- 
lars ($600,000), to pay the land tax assessed by the United 
States Government against the people of Georgia. 

These bonds were engraved with others, but as the United 
States authorities refused to receive payment of the tax from 
the Executive of the State, were not signed or sealed until 
after the next session of the Legislature (Nov., 1866). 

On their assembling, I reported to them the tiiilure to use 
those bonds for the purpose intended, and advised that the Ex- 
ecutive be authorized to issue them in redemption of, or ex- 
change for, bonds of the State, which would mature within a 
short time. Authority to that effect was given by the Legisla- 
ture, and then these bonds, in all respects similar to other 
bonds issued under the act of March 12, 1S66, were executed. 
As these bonds bore a higher rate of interest than those to be 
redeemed by them, and were secured by a mortgage on the 
Western & Atlantic Railroad, it was believed that no diffi- 
culty would be encountered in exchanging them for the latter 



256 APPENDIX. 

on terms advantageous to the State, and tlius our suffering 
people be released from taxation, to meet a heavy demand 
upon the treasury at no distant day. They were accordingly 
placed in the National Bank of the Republic (New York) for 
that purpose, and notice of the terms on which the State would 
make the exchange extensively published. This exchange had 
been commenced, but no great progress had been made in it at 
the time of my removal. Knowing no safer place of deposit 
for them, and desiring not to suspend the process of exchange, 
I suffered them to remain there, giving written instructions to 
the agent to continue it, but beyond that, to deliver them to 
no person except upon the order of John Jones, Treasurer, or 
of myself. 

The Legislature assembled in 1868, passed a resolution au- 
thorizing the Governor inaugurated by them to take possession 
of all bonds of the State executed but not negotiated, wher- 
ever to be found. Under this authority, as I have been in- 
formed, the acting Governor, R. B. Bullock, demanded of the 
bank the unexchanged bonds then in their possession, and the 
agent, under legal advice, surrendered them to him, but re- 
quired of him an indorsement on each bond, of the manner in 
which he became possessed of it. The precise amount so de- 
livered I know not, but suppose it could have varied little from 
six hundred thousand dollars. I am, of course, igiiorant what 
disposition has been made of them. If they have been faith-, 
fully applied to the object intended, they have not increased 
the indebtedness of the State, but have only postponed, to a 
more convenient time, its payment, ^ro tow^c>, and the relief 
has accrued, or will accrue, to administrations succeeding 
mine. 

If otherwise, the misapplication is chargeable to the Execu- 
tive, who, rather than come to an account with the fairly elected 
and honest representatives of the people he was charged with 
having plundered, ingloriously fled the State. In no event can 
those bonds be fairly set down as an original indebtedness in- 
curred by the State during my official term, and by my advice. 

Other bonds were issued by me, in conformity with the act 
of February, 1856, authorizing a subscription to the stock of the 



EX-GO V. JENKINS ON EECONSTEUCTION. 257 

Atlantic & Gulf Railroad Company, and the issue of bonds 
of the State, in payment of installments on that stock, as the 
corporation might show itself entitled to them. Evidence that 
they were so entitled, was in each instance adduced before the 
bonds were issued ; amounts, dates, etc., will appear by refer- 
ence to the records of the Treasurer's and Comptroller-General's 
offices. 

But this liability Avas incurred ten years before my time. 
The amounts of the two classes of bonds last mentioned have, 
in an indiscriminating, unscnipnlous partisan spirit, been added 
to the three millions and thirty thousand mentioned before, and 
the grand aggregate presented as an increase of the public debt 
mider my administration and by my advice. 

I think I have disposed, of those two classes, and will not 
again refer to them. I now propose to show that the public 
debt was increased by less than one-half of the three millions 
and thirty thousand dollars ($3,030,000). 

The authority for issuing these bonds, and the purposes to 
which they were to be applied, will be found in the act of the 
12th of March, 1866, and the 11th section of the General Ap- 
propriation Act of the same year. The following items em- 
braced in the act first mentioned were obviously provisions for 
funding existing indebtedness, and therefore did not increase 
the public debt : 

Section 8 — To pay the matured bond debt and interest thereon . $830,000 
Section 1 — To pay debt to United States Government for rail- 
road property purchased during Provisional Governor John- 
son's term, and interest 500,000 

Loans contracted by Provisional Governor Johnson 30,000 

Making an aggregate of $1,360,000 

Which deducted from the new bond debt of $3,030,000 leaves as 

increase of public debt $1,670,000 

Among the appropriations made and paid from proceeds of these 
bonds were two extraordinary items of pure charity, having 
all the moral obligation of debts, viz. : to purchase corn for 
the destitute, and artificial limbs for disabled soldiers 220,000 

Leaving a balance of $1,450,000 

This balance was relied upon to repair and complete the 
17 



258 APPENDIX. 

equipment of tlie Western & Atlantic Eailroad ; to repair and 
refit the State House, and its gi'ounds ; tlie Executive Mansion 
and furniture ; the Penitentiary ; to pay the unfunded debts of 
the State (by no means inconsiderable), and to defray the entire 
expenses of the government for one year, including the support 
of its great public charities, and the accruing annual interest on 
the public debt. 

This sum of one million four hundred and fifty thousand dol- 
lars was subjected, before it came into the Treasury for general 
use, to a diminution by the expenses incident to the prepara- 
tion and engraving of the bonds, the execution of the mortgage, 
commissions to agents employed in the sale of them, and the 
rate of discount upon them, for no bonds of any Southern State 
could then be negotiated at par value. The bonds first sold — 
about nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000) in amount — 
yielded ninety per cent. A few were afterward sold for ninety- 
five, and they would undoubtedly have reached par value in the 
market, but for the depressing effect of Congressional legislation 
upon the credit of the Southern States. Under this withering 
influence, these bonds afterward fell below ninety in the New 
York market. For more minute details respecting the disposi- 
tion of these bonds, reference is made to the records of the 
Treasury and of the Comptroller-General's office, to which, as 
I write, I have not access. 

I have mentioned a debt contracted by the Provisional 
Superintendent of the Western & Atlantic Railroad under 
Provisional Governor Johnson, and which debt occasioned my 
first unpleasant complication with the United States Govern- 
ment. The Superintendent insisted that he was, by the terms 
of the contract, entitled to a clear credit of two years upon the 
amount of the purchase. The Sale-Agent of the United States, 
on the contrary, affinned that by the terms of sale, the purchaser 
could only be entitled to such credit, on giving bond with ap- 
proved personal security, for the payment of the debt at the 
expiration of two years ; in default of which, monthly payments 
of the twenty-fourth part of the debt, with interest, at Y-30 per 
cent, must be made, until the debt was extinguished. The con- 
test between these officials was an unequal one. The monthly 



EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTEUCTION. 059 

payments were peremptorily demanded. I suggested to the 
Legislatnre the expediency of authorizing the Superintendent 
of the Western & Atlantic Eailroad to give a bond for the 
pajmient of the debt within two years, and of pledging the faith 
ot the State for its payment. Accordingly the act of the' 13th 
March, ISCO, was passed, and a bond executed in conformity 
with It, and delivered. Still, for lack of personal security the 
monthly payments were demanded. In an interview with Mr 
Stanton; Secretary of War, I protested against this, and insisted 
on the payment of the whole sum at the expiration of the two 
years-urging that the pledge of the State's credit was more 
than an equivalent for personal security. 

He heard me patiently, but when I concluded, remarked 
curtly, «I can give you no relief. You seem to think because 
this railroad is the p-operty of the State, and the debt incurred, 
he)' debt, and because she had given her bond for it, she should 
be admitted to the privilege of purchasers giving bond and 
security. I cannot make that distinction. The terms must be 
, complied with." 

^ I asked permission to take issue with him on that point. I 
pressed upon him the universal recognized comity between na- 
tions and States, between organized governments, and stated 
as a corollary from it, that one Government would accord to 
another a credit never given to an individual. I concluded' 
thus: "I have not supposed, Mr. Stanton, I should live to see 
the day when the United States Government would send the 
Governor of a State out to hunt after j)ersonal securitf/ for a 
money contract. I cannot lower the dignity of my State by 
doing such an act." 

The stern Secretary relented, considered, and finally took 
the matter before the Cabinet, who referred it to the Secretary 
of War and the Attorney-General, with power to act. I then 
went before the latter to discuss the question with him. So 
soon as I broached the proposition requiring a State to give 
personal security for a debt, Mr. Stanberry, that upright man, 
courteous gentleman, and able jurist, interrupted me with the 
remark, "Governor, I confess that proposition revolts me." 
"As it has done me, Mr. Attorney-General," I replied. He 



260 APPEin)IX. 

rejoined, " Oh, that will not do, Mr. Stanton must give that 
up." And he did give it up, and cheerfully, at last. 

I refer to this matter partly to show that, among those dis- 
tinguished men, members of the administration (and, we may 
infer, by the Cabinet), Georgia was, at that time, recognized 
as having the status of a State of the Union. 

Early in the year 1866 the Collector of Internal Revenue 
for the Fourth District of Georgia required the Superintendent 
of the Western & Atlantic Railroad to make monthly returns 
to him of the gross receipts from the road, and to pay a tax of 
two and one-half per cent, upon them. 

Believing the tax to be illegal, because assessed upon the 
revenue of the State, I appealed against it to the Secretary of 
the United States Treasury, who, after a reference of the ques- 
tion to the Solicitor of the Treasury and a* report by him, over- 
ruled my appeal and ordered the collection to proceed. Kot 
satisfied with the decision, I filed a bill in equity in the Dis- 
trict Court of the United States, in the name of the State of 
Georgia, against the Collector, seeking to enjoin the collection 
of the tax. After argument upon a rule against the Collector, 
to show cause in Chambers why an injunction should not issue, 
the Judge reserved his decision until the next term of the 
Court in Atlanta ; but assured the Solicitors of the State, in 
the presence of the District Attorney and the Collector, that 
meantime no further action in collection of the tax would be 
taken. 

During his temporary absence from the State, however, and 
before his decision, the Collector peremptorily demanded pay- 
ment of the tax then accrued (amounting to more than twenty- 
four thousand dollars) within ten days, in default of which a 
levy would be made upon the property of the road. Informed 
of this, I directed the Superintendent to pay under protest, 
which was done. 

As soon as practicable afterward, in a personal interview 
with the Secretary of the Treasury, I brought all those matters 
to his consideration, and found him profoundly ignorant of the 
filing of the bill, the proceedings in Chambers, the assurance 
of the Judge respecting suspension of action, and the sub- 



EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 261 

sequent enforcement of jmyment. I do him the justice to 
say, that he manifested genuine surprise and indignation at 
the last stage of the proceeding. He pronounced it "all 
wrong," and immediately summoned before him the Deputy 
Commissioner of Internal Kevenue (the Chief being absent at 
the time), wlio, after hearing the recital, concurred in the Sec- 
retary's opinion, and declared himself equally ignorant and in- 
nocent of the wrong. . 

The result was that the Secretary ordered the suspension of 
the collection, until rendition of the Judge's decision (saying 
he thought I had adopted the best course for the settlement of 
the question), but declined to refund the sum paid under duress, 
which had been pronounced " all wrong " until the decision 
was made. 

At the next term of the Court, Judge Erskine delivered an 
elaborate opinion, concluding with an order of injunction ^eiv- 
dente lite. A copy of this decision was forwarded to the De- 
partment with a second demand for repayment, which was 
declined on the ground that the Secretary was considering the 
' propriety of carrying up the question. 

The Collector, I was informed, never answered the bill, nor 
put in an appearance ; and at the September term, 18G7, the 
Judge granted a perpetual injunction, and decreed that the 
sum paid under duress be refunded. 

A third demand was then made for repayment, but I was 
answered that the legality of the tax had been referred to the 
Attorney-General of the United States, and that the Depart- 
ment would await his opinion. That was soon after given, 
sustaining the decree of the Court, which declared the tax 
illegal. Then, upon a fourth demand, the money was refunded, 
but interest on it was refused, , although the Treasury of the 
United States had held it about eighteen months, and although 
during the same time interest was accruing at the rate of 7.30 
per cent, against the Western & Atlantic Railroad to the 
United States, on the debt before mentioned, and soon after 
paid in full. 

But for tliis appeal to the Judiciary, in limine, it cannot be 
doubted that this onerous and illegal tax would, year after 



262 APPENDIX. 

year, have been extorted from our impoverished State by the 
spoiled and spoiling minions of power. It is but one of many 
exhibitions of the tyrannous and rapacious spirit in which the 
ruling party have requited the unconditional and sincere sub- 
mission of the Southern people to the authority of the Federal 
Government. These wrongs I impute to the ruling party — 
theirs is the sin ; and theirs, in the time of recompense, will be ■ 
the shame and the suffering. We can only possess ourselves in 
patience, looking for the outstretching of His right arm who 
has said, " Vengeance is ^nine, and I ivill rejyay.'''' 

But these things should not be allowed to pass unheeded or 
unchronicled. 

Great as were the embarrassments encompassing the office 
during the first year of my term, they were vastly increased by 
the passage of the Reconstruction Acts, and the entrance into 
the State of a military chieftain, transferred from " headquar- 
ters in the saddle " to headquarters in Atlanta. This man came 
invested with despotic power over the people of Georgia, and 
with authority, at his sovereign pleasure, to remove from office 
any one of their chosen public servants. And these things — 
shades of "Washington, Jefferson, and Madison ! — were done, 
notwithstanding the distinct recognition of Georgia (either be- 
fore they were commenced, or during their progress) as a State 
within the Union, by every department of the Federal Govern- 
ment. I pause not to produce proofs of the assertion; but I 
challenge an issue upon it. 

These Reconstruction Acts, it will be remembered, had- 
been passed by the Congress of the United States over the 
veto of the President, based upon their unconstitutionality. 
So soon as action was taken under them — so soon as the foot 
of the military Despot was impressed upon the soil of Georgia 
— I repaired to Washington and filed a bill, in the name of the 
State of Georgia, against the intruders in the Supreme Court, 
seeking to enjoin and set aside these proceedings as infringe- 
ments upon the reserved sovereignty of the State, and in viola- 
tion of the Constitution of the United States. 

The right of the State to file that bill, and the jurisdiction 
of the Court in the case, depended upon the fact alleged, that 



EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTKUCTIOX. 2G3 

slie was one of the States of the Union. As a foreign power, 
or a conquered province, she would have had no right to do so 
— the Court, no jurisdiction in the premises. Still, as the rec- 
ords of the Court show, upon full presentation of the Com- 
plaint, formal permission was granted to file the bill ; nor was 
she afterward dismissed the Com-t unredressed, on the ground 
that she lacked that status. 

After argument, the hill was dismissed because in it there 
was alleged neither interference, nor the threat of interference, 
with, hex 2)i"oj)erti/, which the Court held was necessary to make 
a case for their sublime consideration. Nothino; so far had 
been disturbed or threatened, save the modest, though priceless, 
diadem of her reserved sovereignty (in Kadical estimation a 
paltry bauble), of which that elevated Tribunal could not con- 
descend to take cognizance. 

The deep humiliation which then pervaded the entire mass 
of a proud people — proud in their historical reminiscences, and 
their consciousness of thorough rectitude of intention and of 
conduct — will be long remembered. Their final submission 
was as truthful and unqualified as their resistance liad been 
honest, open, and heroic. 

But that humiliation was intensified in the person of their 
Executive, forced, as he was, by circumstances into daily con- 
tact with the insolence of an intruded Ruler, trained to arbi- 
trary military comand, unfamiliar with civil government, and 
rendered giddy by his unwonted eminence. Had I yielded to 
the promptings of personal feeling, I would at once have es- 
caped the pain of this unprecedented subordination by resign- 
ing the office. But knowing that the position would enable 
me to keep open to our people a channel of communication 
with the Chief Magistrate of the Union (who was a reluctant 
agent in this crusade against liberty), and might thus, in some 
degree, alleviate their sufferings, I resol\'ed to remain in it, 
yielding all questions of mere policy, but maintaining jirinciple 
to the extent of my power ; and falling (if fall I must) in its 
defence. I was powerless to prevent the removal of faithful 
officers of the judicial department, or the appointment of others 
to fill their places, or to arrest the latter in the unauthorized 



264 APPENDIX. 

exercise of tlieir ill-gotten ofSces ; but I declined to pay tliem 
the salaries appropriated to officers constitutionally appointed 
and commissioned. This alone would probably have induced 
my removal ; but an occasion of greater moment soon after 
occurred. 

The Congress of the United States, by their nefarious Recon- 
struction Acts, had provided for the assemblage of a Convention, 
at Atlanta, to frame a Constitution for the State in lien of that 
adopted in 18G5, after the close of the war. The latter was 
confessedly Republican in character — acknowledged as the Su- 
preme law of the State, the Constitution of the United States 
and all acts of Congress in conformity therewith — had received 
the President's approval, and under it the existing State Gov- 
ernment had been organized. 

The Congressional act which called the Convention of 1867 
and 1868 together, provided for defraying their expenses, only 
by authorizing them to levy a tax for that purpose. The body, 
finding themselves unprovided with subsistence, and incapable 
of feeding upon their patriotism until relieved by the slow pro- 
cess of taxation, experimented upon the credit of the State, 
which, though always previously a reliable resqnrce in emer- 
gencies, failed to attract capital, Vhen tampered with by them. 

In this extremity, they turned their longing eyes upon the 
Treasury of the State. Whether originally prompted, or only 
encouraged by the military Dictator, they passed a resolution 
requiring the Treasurer of the State to pay to their financial 
agent the sum of forty thousand dollars, for the present use of 
the Convention. This resolution (being only an entering 
wedge) was approved by General Pope, under whose broad 
shadow they held their daily sittings ; and armed with this high 
authority, the agent designated repaired to Milledgeville, and 
made formal demand of the money upon Colonel John Jones, 
State Treasurer. 

That worthy gentleman and fiiithful officer refused pay- 
ment in the absence of an Executive warrant. About this 
time General Pope (proofs of whose numerous abuses of jDOwer 
had been multiplied to the President by myself and others) was 
removed from his command in Georgia, and General Meade ap- 



EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 265 

pointed to succeed liim. One of the successor's first acts ^vas a 
requisition upon me for a warrant upon the Treasurer to satisfy 
the demand of the Convention. With this I refused to comply, 
on the ground that the Constitution, under which I was elected 
and inaugurated, and which I had sworn to obey, expressly 
provided that no money should be taken from the Treasury, ex- 
cept by Executive warrant, upon appropriation made by law ; 
and that no appropriation had been made by law to defray the 
expenses of that Convention. I insisted that the requisition 
was unwarranted, even by the Reconstruction Acts. The Con- 
gress had not ventured upon an act so flagrant as the direct ap- 
propriation of money from the Treasury of Georgia. But they 
had bestowed a largess of power upon a military chieftain, 
whose lack of training in the principles of civil government 
rendered him little scrupulous in overstepping constitutional 
barriers. I felt, and feel, that the argument was with me, but 
the power was with the General, and beneath its pressure I 
and the argument went down together. I was removed by a 
military fiat, and Brevet Brigadier-General Buger, of the U. S. 
Army, a subordinate of General Meade, appointed to succeed me. 

On presenting himself to assume the Government, the ap- 
pointee, in answer to a question by me, read me an extract from 
his instructions, directing him, in case of resistance, to employ 
such force as might be necessary to overcome it. Having at 
my command no force whatever, I contented myself with a pro- 
test against the proceeding, as a flagrant usurpation, violative 
of the Constitution of the United States, and a declaration that 
I forbore resistance only because I was powerless to make it — 
and so retired. 

I believe it is pretty generally understood that, as far as 
was practicable, in the brief interval allowed me, I placed the 
movable values of the State, and certainly the money then in 
the Treasury, beyond the reach of the spoilers, and in the exer- 
cise of a legal discretion suspended the collection of taxes then 
in progress. At all events, the immediate object of this extreme 
measure, the placing of the funds actually in the Treasury at 
the disposal of the Constitution-makers, then unconstitutionally 
assembled at Atlanta, was defeated. Contemporaneously with 



266 APPENDIX. 

this entire, imdisguised usurpation of tlie Executive Office, those 
military men took actual possession of tlie State Capitol, and 
its grounds — of the Executive Mansion and its furniture and 
grounds, and of the archives of the State. 

Furthermore, they revoked my order suspending the collec- 
tion of taxes, which they required the Collector to pay to their 
own appointed treasurer, seized upon the income of the West- 
ern & Atlantic Hailroad (then in good order and successful 
operation), and, in short, took within their grasp every dollar 
of the subsequently incoming revenue of the State. 

]Sro insinuation is intended that they appropriated to their 
own use any portion of the State's money, unless in the way 
of salaries to which they were not entitled, and about which I 
know nothing. 

It is doubtless true that they went out with cleaner hands 
than did their immediate successors, the so-called Eepresenta- 
tives of the People. 

The charge is, that by the strong hand of power they 
wrested this property from the rightful possession of the consti- 
tuted authorities of the State, and applied it, in their discretion, 
to public uses unauthorized by her fundamental and statutory 
law, and subversive of her sovereignty. 

Seeing that they had then made themselves amenable to the 
jurisdiction of the U. S. Supreme Court, as that Court had 
been understood to define it, in their decision of the previous 
case, and believing myself still de Ju)'e, though not de facto^ 
Governor of the State, I again went before that tribunal, alleg- 
ing these acts of progressive usurpation, and seeking redress 
ao-ainst the wrono;-doers. 

The hearing of this case would have brought distinctly 
under the review of the Court the constitutionality of the Re- 
construction Acts, which I especially desired. Not so the Court. 
They — or a majority of them — felt a loyal repugnance to that 
delicate issue. Leave to file the bill, on application made in 
open Court, and upon a statement of the allegations contained 
in it, was unhesitatingly given, the Attorney-General of the 
United States being present, and making no objection ; and the 
bill was delivered to the Clerk. 



But tills permission was revoked -udtliin twenty-four lio" 
as having been improvidently granted, although it neither 
fringed any existing rule of practice, nor committed the Cc 
to any thing touching the merits of the case. Then why 
voked ? For no conceivable reason other than to oj^en 1 
case to the operation of a new rule of practice, adopted after 
permission to file the bill ; and which produced unneccss 
• and vexatious delay. Yet more, in subsequent stages, additi 
al delays were occasioned by exceptional rulings of the Coi 
and at last we were gravely told that there did not remain 
the term, time enough to hear and determine a motion for 
junction. 

Before the commencement of the next term (as the Cc 
had probably anticipated) the Atlanta Convention had done 
* work — Meade and Euger had disappeared from the scenes, 

|; Bullock and his hungry horde, by force of the bayonet, thoi 

under the flimsy veil of constitutional reform, had becc 
I , " lords of the ascendant." The suit before the Court was 
f of a vindictive character — damages were not sought against 

defendants ; but only a riddance from their usurpations, 
course, it would have been folly to pursue them after their 
dication. The cause could not have been pressed against th 
Let it not be said that the object aimed at by this litigat 
was accomplished without the action of the Court. Far fi 
it. Had the Court pronounced the Reconstruction Acts unc 
stitutional, we would not only have been delivered from Me 
and Euger, but from the whole Atlanta Convention. The 
isting State Government would have been sustained ; Bull 
would have remained in the Express Office, and the pres 
derangement of our finances, as well as many other evils, wo 
have been avoided. 

"When it is considered that the enforcement of the Eec 
struction Acts, then in progress, would inevitably overthrow 
isting State constitutions, and with them existing State gov( 
ments ; that the Executive and Legislative Departments of 
Federal Government were distinctly at issue, upon the quest 
of the constitutionality of those acts, and that there was in 
Supreme Court a case pending, and a motion in that case, re: 



Li 



268 APPENDIX. 

for a hearing, whicli called" for a judicial settlement of that 
question, what can excuse a refusal to hear it ? No more mo- 
mentous question was ever submitted to that Court. If the 
allegations in the bill failed to give the Court jurisdiction, why 
not say so ? 

If the Executive Department were wrong, and the Legisla- 
tive Department right, on that great issue, why not, by a solemn 
judgment, terminate the controversy, and give quiet to the 
country ? 

They said there did not remain, of the term, time enough 
for the hearing — but why not ? 

The term was not closed by legal limitation, but by judicial 
discretion. Were their Honors weary — exhausted by their 
judicial labors ? Ah ! let them contemplate the weariness of 
spirit, the exhaustion of resources, since inflicted upon the peo- 
ple of Georgia by the misrule they were called upon to arrest, 
but would not even inquire into, and then justify, if they can, 
their delinquency. 

I entered that Court with all the veneration for it inspired 
by a Marshall, a Taney, and their compeers. I left it with the 
painful impression, which time has not mitigated, that the then 
incumbents (or a majority of them) had, by procrastination, de- 
liberately evaded a judgment they could not have refused, with- 
out dishonor to themselves ; yet could not have rendered, with- 
out oflience to the despotic and menacing faction then and still 
wielding the power of the Government. 

It was probably under the prompting of a similar feeling 
that the venerable Justice Grier, the senior in years of them 
all, about the same time, from his seat on the Bench, in open 
session, declared himself ashamed of the attitude assumed by 
the Court (in another case resulting from post-war tyranny), 
and, like an old Roman, shook the reproach from his skirts. 

Here I turn aside to notice a rumor, invented and circulated 
to my prejudice, by certain mendacious Radicals of Georgia — 
that in these suits I had, without authority of law, expended 
thirty thousand dollars of the people's money. The expense 
of the first suit, instituted and ended while I was still undis- 
puted Governor of Georgia, amounted in all (including lawyers' 



EX-GOV. JENKINS ON RECONSTRUCTION. 269 

fees, Court costs, and printing expenses, rendered necessary by 
their rule of practice, and excluding my personal expenses), to 
two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,Y00). 

This sum I paid out of the contingent fund, placed at my 
disposal ; a balance of which remained unexpended on my re- 
tirement. That the passage of the Reconstruction Acts, and the 
consequent rape of the sovereignty of Georgia, presented a 
contingency unanticipated by any, save its unprincipled authors, 
and that it cried aloud for all possible resistance, no right-mind- 
ed man will deny. 

Having been sustained by the opinion of eminent jurists, 
as to the practicability of judicial relief in the premises, I am 
content to stand or fall by the judgment of my Fellow-citizens, 
regarding the propriety of this exjDenditure. 

The second suit cost the State not one cent. 

The smallness of the expenditure in the first is attributable 
to the public spirit and disinterested patriotism of the Solicitors 
employed for the State. I take pleasure in testifying in regard 
to both cases, that the people of Georgia owe a debt of grati- 
tude they can never cancel, to Messrs. Charles 0' Conor, Jere- 
miah S. Black, Eobert J. Brent, David Dudley Field, and Ed- 
gar Cowan. 

When I left the Executive office, I took with me the record 
of warrants drawn upon the treasury, the book of receipts for 
them, and other papers therewith connected, and the seal of 
the Executive Department. It was my purpose to retain these 
things in my own custody until I should see in the Executive 
office a rightful incumbent, and then to restore them. 

The removal of the books and papers was simply a caution- 
ary measure for my own protection. Not so with the seal. 
That was a symbol of the Executive authority ; and although 
devoid of intrinsic, material value, was hallowed by a sentiment 
which forbade its surrender to unauthorized hands. Afterward, 
while I was in "Washington, vainly seeking the interposition of 
the Supreme Court, a formal written demand was made upon 
me by Gen. Ruger for a return of these articles, with which I 
declined to comply. The books and papers I herewith transmit 
to your Excellency, that they may resume their place among 



270 APPENDIX. 

the archives of the State. "With them, I also deliver to you 
the seal of the Executive Department. I derive high satisfac- 
tion from the reflection that it has never been desecrated by the 
grasp of a military Usurper's hand — never been prostituted to 
authenticate official misdeeds of an upstart Pretender. Un- 
polluted as it came to me, I gladly place it in the hands of a 
■worthy son of Georgia — her freely chosen Executive — my first 
legitimate successor. Anticipating as the fruits of your Adr 
ministration, distinguished honor to yourself, and lasting bene- 
fits to your confiding constituents, I am, 

Your Excellency's ob't servant, 

C. J. Jenkens. 



GENERAL ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



Absolutism, 57, 58, 185, 193, 195. 

Adams, Samuel, 194. 

Akkrman, Amos T., Attorney-General U. 
S., reply to, by Stephens, 188. 

Alexander, Adam L., Dedication to, 4. 

American Conflict, 138. 

Ames, Fisher, 135, 194. 

Appeal, Memphis, 147, 157. 

Aristotle, holds sovereignty to be in- 
divisible, 111. 

Armageddon, 224-25. 

B. 

Ballot-box, surest remedy, 51, 57, 136. 
Bank of Augusta ?w. Earle, 73, 74. 
Barksdale, IIon. E., 155, 157 ; Letter 

from, to Mr. Stephens, 159 ; Sur-rejoin- 

der, 171. 
Beauregard, Gen. G. T., Memorandum 

of Council of War signed by, and 

others, 162. 
Bledsoe, Albert Taylor, LL. D., 10. 
Benjamin, Judah P., 23. 
Boston, the " cause of the cause of all," 

132. 
Brougham, Lord, 48, 198. 



Calhoun, John C, referred to, and de- 
fended against the charge of having 
denied the right of secession, 32 ; Re- 
ferred to, 62, 68, 70 ; Held nullification 
to be a Constitutional remedy, not 
secession, 113. 

Causa Causans of the War, 39, 49. 

Centralism, 49, 50, 57, 58, 185, 223-24. 

Chase, Salmon P., 190 et seqiiais. 

Clarion, The, 155. 

Clay, Henry, 68, 106 ; Vote on Calhoun's 
resolution of 1837, declaring that the 
Constitution was made by sovereign 
States, 109, 



Clayton, Hon. Alexander M., on election 

of Mr. Davis to the Presidency, 147. 

Cobb, Howell, 147, 154. 

Colquitt, General Alfred H., 178. 

Confederate States — Did not desire the 
■war nor did they inaugurate it, 44. 

Compact, Constitution of United States 
on, between States, 67, 118, 126. 

Co.xsolidation, 49, 50, 57, 58, 185. 

Constitution of the U. S., the position 
of Mr. Webster that it is not a Com- 
pact between Sovereign States, 68; 
First Articles of Confederation — first 
Constitution, 104 ; Letter of Madison 
in 1833, showing that the Constitution 
was made by the States in their author- 
itative capacity, 118; Is a compact 
between Sovereign States, 12G. 

Constitutionalist, Augusta, Ga., 137 ; 
Editorial from, 155, 167, 188. 

Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky., 147. 

Crawford, Hon. Martin J., 148 ; Letter 
from, on election of Mr. Davis, 161. 

Crown-Officer — would-be, Mr. Attorney- 
General Akerman, 188, 193. 

Curtis, George T., his review of the 
" Constitutional View of the Late War 
Between the States," etc., 61 ; His four 
grounds of criticism on the " Constitu- 
tional View," 73 ; The extent to which 
he holds the States to be sovereign, 77 ; 
Rejoinder by, 114. 

D. 

Davis, Jefferson, 29 ; Election to the 
Presidency of the Confederate States, 
147 ; Letter from, to Gen. Joseph E, 
Johnston on Confederate inactivity in 
the Fall of 1861, 155. 

Debates, Elliot's, referred to, 24. 

Declaration of Independence, referred 
to, 23. 

De Tocquetille, M., referred to, 34, 48. 



272 



GENERAL ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



Draper, Dr. William, History by, con- 
tains forged speech, 184. 

E. 

Elliot's Debates, referred to, 24. 
Ellis, Charles, 177. 
Ellsworth, Oliver, 135, 194. 
Empire, 50, 185, 193, 195. 

F. 
Federalist, referred to, 27, 28. 
FiLMEB, Sir Kobert, referred to, 106. 
FiNEGAN, Gen. Joseph, 178. 
Force Bill, 68. 

Forney, Col. John W., Stephens' reply 
to, on Forged Speech, 180. 

G. 

Greeley, Hon. Horace, 137. 

Grotius, holds sovereignty to be indivis- 
ible, 111. 

H. 

Habeas Corpus, writ of, 145. 

Hallam — on the "aggressor in a war," 
44. 

Hamilton, Alexander, 135, 194, 195. 

Hancock, John, 194. 

Hayne, Hon. Robert Y., 63, 65. 

Henry, Patrick, 135, 209. 

Holcombe, James P., 23. 

Hume, David, referred to, 106. 



Imperialism", 50, 185, 193, 195. 

iNAUGURATipN OF THE WaR, 42, 43. 



Jackson, Andrew, Farewell Address, 58 ; 
Proclamation of 1832, 63; Did not 
approve Webster's speech made in 
1833, did approve Virginia Resolutions 
of '98, Ky., 107, 128, 194, 195. 

Jefferson, Thomas, referred to, 34, 46, 
47, 48, 67, 137, 194. 

Jenkins, Charles J., Appendix No. III. 

Johnston, Gen. Joseph E., Letter from, 
to Mr. Davis on Confederate Inactivity 
in Fall of 1861, 156 ; Memorandum of 
Council of War, signed by, and others, 
162, 

L. 

Leader, The Baltimore, 9. 

Lee, Benjamin Watkins, 106. 

Lieber, Dr. Francis, referred to, 24 ; 
Holds sovereignty to be indivisible, 112. 

Lincoln, Abraham, 137, 201, 213. 

Livingston, Edward, 63, 130. 



LossiNG, Benson J., History by, contains 

forged speech, 184. 
Lumpkin, Joseph Henry, referred to, 

105. 

M. 

Mackenzie, Sir George, referred to, 106. 

Madison, James, referred to, 34, 57, 194; 
Letter from, to Webster, on his speech . 
in 1833, 118, 129. 

Mahon, Lord, referred to, 25. 

Manassas, Confederate inactivity after 
the battle of, in 1861, 155. 

Marshall, John, 192, 194, 195. 

Memorandum of Council of- War, signed 
by Gens. Smith, Beauregard, and John- 
ston, 162. 

Metaphysics, not applicable to the fads 
connected with the history of the Fed- 
eral Government, 56. 

Monarchy, 57. 

Monroe, James, 57. 

Morning Chronicle, Washington, D. C, 
forged speech, 180. 

Muddle, 117, 128. 

N. 

Napoleon III., his " Life of Julius Caesar," 
referred to, 25. 

Nation, what kind of a Nation the Fed- 
eral Union constitutes, 46, 47. 

National Intelligencer, Washington, 
D. C, 39. 

New Era, Reply to, by Stephens, 196 ; Re- 
joinder by, 207 ; Sur-rejoinder to, 214. 

Nichols, Hon. S. S., 39 ; Reply to his 
article by Mr. Stephens, 40, et sequens ; 
His rejoinder to Mr. Stephens, 50 ; Mr. 
Stephens' sur-rejoinder to him, 53, 137. 

NiLEs' Register, referred to, 23. 

Nullification, 63, 68, 106, 113, 118. 

0. 

Olustee, or Ocean Pond, battle of, 177. 
Origin of the War, 42, 43. 
Orthodox State Right Principle, 45. 

P. 

Pardon, 58. 

Parsons, Theophilus, 194. 
Paul, St., 59. 
Peace Congress, 190. 
Puffendorff, holds sovereignty to be in- 
divisible, 111. 



Ralle's Treatise on the Constitution, 
referred to, 33. 



GENERAL ANALYTICAL INDEX. 



273 



Randall, James R., 155, 162, 107. 

Republican, Savannah, Ga., editorial 
from, 177. 

Resolutions, Kentuclcy, of '98, 48, 58, 
135, 194 ; First, of Mr. Calhoun in the 
Senate in 1837, 108; Sustained by 
eighteen States against six, 109. 

Review, The Southern, 10. 



Secession, justification of, 55 ; Abandon- 
ment of, 55, 226 ; Not a living issue, 
56 ; The right of, not Constitutional or 
Revolutionary, but Sovereign, 18 ci se- 
qucns, 31, 44, 51. 

Sherman, Roger, 135. 

Smith, Gen. Gustavcs \V. — Memorandum 
of Council of War signed by, and 
others, 162. 

Smith, James M., Appendix Xo. III. 

Sneed, James R., 178. 

South Carolina, Act on Xullification Or- 
dinance, 137. 

Southern Review, The, 10. 

Sovereignty — Where it resides in the 
American system, 45 ; Daniel Webster 
upon, 75 ; Indivisible in itself, just as 
the mind is in the individual organism, 
111 ; May put restraints upon its ex- 
ercise without parting with any portion 
of its essence, 113; Popular Sov- 
ereignty, 137, 144. 

Statesman, The Baltimore, 9. 

Stephens, Alexander H., review by, of 
Dr. Bledsoe's Review, 10; Reply of, to 
Judge Nicholas, 39 ; Sur-rejoinder to 
same, 53 ; Reply by, to Mr. Curtis' Re- 
view, 92 ; Comments by, on Webster's 
speech in the case of the Bank of Au- 
gusta vs. Earle, and at Capon Springs, 
96, 99 ; On Force Bill, 102 ; His con- 
sistency on the Right of Secession, 13, 
14 et sequens ; On Mr. Lincoln's elec- 
tion as a just cause of Secession, 14 ; 
Secession maintained by him, not as a 
Constitutional or Revolutionary, but a 
Sovereign Right, 18 ct sequens, 31, 44; 
Sur-rejoinder by, to Mr. Curtis, 123; 
Reply by, to Horace Greeley's criticism, 
137 ; Reply by, to Alexander M. Clay- 
ton, 149 ; Reply and rejoinder to 
Barksdale, 169 ; Rebuttal to same, 163 ; 
On battle of Olustee or Ocean Pond, 
177; On forged speech, 180; Speech 
by him in Secession Convention, 186 ; 



Reply to the New Era, 196 ; Rejoinder 
to, by same, 207 ; Sur-rejoinder to, 214 ; 
Union speech before the Georgia Leg- 
islature, 202, 203 ; Speech by, in 1834, 
204-206. 
Stephens, Linton, 226 ; Speeches on Re- 
construction, Appendix, Nos. I. and 

n. 

Story, Joseph, 132. 



Tariff, Compromise Bill of, in 1833, 106. 
Theory, Government of U. S. not subject- 
matter of, 215-217. 
Thucydides, referred to, 21, 22, 25. 
Toombs, Robert, 23, 147, 152, 153. 
Tribune, New York, 137. 
Tucker's Commentaries, referred to, 33. 



Union, The, of the States, Federal and 
Conventional, 31. 

V. 

Yattel, quoted by Mr. Webster, 70, 221 ; 
Holds Sovereignty to be indivisible, 
111. 

W. 

Wade, Benjamin F., 137. 

Washington, George, 57 ; Styled the 
Union a " Confederated Republic," 
131, 194. 

Webster, Daniel, referred to, 28, 01, 03; 
His four propositions on which rests 
bis assumption that the Constitution 
of the United States is "not a com. 
pact between Sovereign States," 69 ; 
His reply to Mr. Calhoun, in 1833, 70; 
His position in the case of the Bank 
of Augusta vs. Earle, 7", 74, 75 ; His 
letter to the Barings, 79 ; His speech 
at Capon Springs, in which he held 
that the Constitution was " a compact 
between States," and that a bargain 
cannot be broken on one side and still 
bind the other side, his position that, 
81 ; State Secession a Revolutionary 
right, 90 ; Letter to, from Madison on 
his speech in 1833, 118. 

Webster, Dr. Noah, referred to, 34 ; 
Mutilation of his Dictionary, 220, 221. 

World, The New York, Letters to, in 
the Curtis Controversy, 61, 91, 114, 
123. 



THE END. 



18 



Recent Scieatilc PiililicatioBS Iij D. Apiiletoii & Co. 

LYELL— PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY (Vol. I.); or, the Modern Chan-es of the Earth 
aud its Inhabitants considered, as illustrative of Geology. By Sir Charles Lyell, 
Bart., M. A., F. R. S. In two volumes. 8vo. 
This is a new edition (the eleventh) of this great work. It has been entirely and carefully re- 
vised, and is illustrated with numerous Maps, Plates, and Woodcuts. Vol. n. will be issued durin"-- 
the present year. " 

SCHELLEN— SPECTRUM ANALYSIS, in its Application to Terrestrial Substances, 

and the Physical Constitution of the Heavenly Bodies. Familiarly explained by Dr. 

H. ScHELLEN, Director der Realschule I. 0. Cologne, Ritter des Rothen Adlerordens IV. 

KL., Associate of several Learned Societies. Translated from the second enlar"-ed 

and revised German edition, by Jane and Carohne Lasscll. Edited, with Notes,%y 

Wm. Huggins, LL. D., D. C. L., F. R. S. With numerous Woodcuts, Colored Plates, 

j and Portraits ; also, Angstrom's and KirchhoflTs Maps. 455 pp. 8vo. Cloth. Price, $6. 

The colored plates illustrating this edition of the work, requiring great care in printing, were 

executed in Loudon. 

" This admirable work does credit to, or should we eay is worthy of, the author, the trans- 
lators, aud the editor. The first part treats on the artificial sources of high drgrees of heat and 
light ;■ the second on Spectrum Analysis in its application to the heavenly bodies. We must ap- 
prove the method followed in the translation, and by the editor. In many tran^'lationB the views 
of the author are suppressed, in order that the views of the translator or editor mav be expounded ; 
but here Dr. Huggins, however leniently such a fault might have been looked upon with Lim, has 
permitted the author's views to remain intact, clearly stating his own, and wherein lies the dif- 
ference." — Chemical News, 

LUBBOCK.— PRE-HISTORIG TIMES, as illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the 
Manners and Customs of Modem Savages. By Sir John Lubbock, Bart., M. P., Vice- 
President of the Royal Society ; of the British Association, etc. 1 vol., 8vo, 640 pp. 
Plates and Illustrations. Cloth. Price, $5.00. 

" Fully satisfied that religion and science cannot in reality be at variance, I have striven, in 
the present publication, to follow out the rule laid down by the Bishop of London in his excel- 
lent lecture, delivered last year at Edinburgh. 'The man of science,' say? Dr. Tait, ' oucht to go 
on honestly, patiently, diffidently, observing and stirring up his observations, and carrying his 
reasonings unflinchingly to their legitimate conclusions, convinced that it would be treason to 
the majesty at once of science and of religion, if he sought to help either by swerving ever so lit- 
tle from the straight rule of truth.' "—Exlractfro7n Prejace. 

HUXLEY.— ANATOMY OF VERTEBRATED ANIMALS. By Thomas Henry Htrx- 
LET, LL. D., F. R. S., author of " Man's Place in Nature," " On the Origin of Species," 
" Lay Sermons and Addresses," etc. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $2.50. 

The former works of Professor Huxley leave no room for doubt as to the importance and value 
of his new volume. It is one which will be very acceptable to all who are interested in the subject 
of which it treats. 

"This long-expected work will be cordially welcomed by all students and teachers of Compar- 
ative Anatomy as a compendious, reliable, and, notwithstanding its small dimensions, most com- 
prehensive guide on the subject of which it treats. To praise or to criticise the work of so ac- 
complished'a master of his favorite science would be equally out of place. It is enough to say 
that it realizes, in a remarkable degree, the anticipations which have been formed of it fand that 
it presents an extraordinary combination of wide, general views, with the clear, accurate, aud 
succinct statement of a prodigious number of individual facts." — Nature. 

NICHOLSON'.~A MANUAL OF ZOOLOGY, for the Use of Students. With a Gen- 
eral Introduction on the Principles of Zoology. By Henry Alleyne Nicholson, M. D., 
D. Sc, M. a., Ph. D. (Gott.), F. R. S. E., F. G. S., Professor of Natural History and 
Botany in University College, Toronto ; formerly Lecturer on Natural History in the 
Medical School of Edinburgh ; Vice-President of the Geological Society of Edinburgh. 
Second edition, revised and considerably enlarged. 1 vol., 8vo, 673 pages. 

DESCHANEL.— ELEMENTARY TREATISE ON NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. By 

A. Privat Deschanel, formerly Professor of Physics in the Lycee Louis-le-Grand, 
Inspector of the Academy of Paris. Translated and edited, with extensive additions, 
by J. D. Everett, Professor of Natural Philosophy in tlie Queen's College, Belfast. _ To 
be completed in Four Parts. Part L Mechanics, Hydrostatics, and Pneumatics; 
Part II. Heat, and Part IIL Physics, are now ready in separate volumes. Copiously 
illustrated. 8vo. Flexible cloth. Price, $2.00 each. 
HINTON.— MAN AND HIS DWELLING-PLACE. By James Hinton, author of the 
" Mystery of Pain." 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, ^i.VS. 
The author of this work holds a unique position among the thinkers of the age. He brings to 
the discussion, of man and Nature, aud the higher problems of human life, the latest and most 
thorough scientific preparation, aud constantly employs the later dynamic philosophy m dealing 
with them. But he is broader than the Bcientiiic school which he recognizes, but with hira the 
moral and religious elements of man are supreme. He conjoins strict science with high spiritu- 
ality of view. '-Man and his Dwelling-Place" is here rewrhten and compressed, and presents, 
in a pointed and attractive style, original aspects of the most engaging questions of the time. 



Scientific Pilicatlois of D. Apjleton & Co. 



DARWIN —THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 
by Means of Natural Selection, or the 
Preservation of Favored Races in the 
Struggle for Life. New and revised 
edition, with Additions. With Copious 
Index. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 
$2.00. 



THE DESCENT OF MAN, and 

Selection in Relation to Sex, With 
many Illustrations. 2 vols., 12mo. 
Cloth. Price, $4.00. 

This work, in which the author erpresses his 
peculiar viewti boldljr and forcibly, has been 
widely read and criticised, and, whatever may 
be the opinion arrived at in regard to his theo- 
ries, the reader cannot fail to obtain pleasure 
and profit in its perusal. 

JOURNAL OF RESEARCHES into 



the Natural History and Geology of the 
Countries visited during the Voyage of 
H. M. S. Beagle round the World. A 
new edition, uniform with "Origin of 
Species " and " Descent of Man. 1 vol., 
12mo. Cloth. Price, $2.00. 

An interesting account of a voyage of scien- 
tific research and discovery. 

HUXLEY— MAN'S PLACE IN NA- 
TURE. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 



ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 

1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.00. 

LAY SERMONS, Addresses, and 

Reviews. 1 vol., 12rao. Cloth. Price, 
^1.15. 

ELEMENTS OF PHYSIOLOGY, 

and Hygiene. By T. H. Huxley and 
W. J. Youmans. 1 vol., 12mo. $1.75. 

MORE CRITICISMS ON DARWIN, 

and Administrative Nihilism. 1 vol., 
12mo. Price, 50 cents. 

Valuable to all who arc interested in scientific 
study or reading. 

PROCTOR (R. A.)— OTHER worlds 

THAN OURS : the Plurality of Worlds, 
Studied under the Light of Recent Sci- 
entific Researches. By Richard A. 
Proctor, B. A., F. R. A. S., author of 
" Saturn and its System," " Sun Views 
of the Earth," " Half Hours with the 
Telescope," etc. With Illustrations, 
some colored. 12mo. Cloth. Price, 
82..^0. 



PROCTOR (R. A.)— LIGHT SCIEN 
FOR LEISURE HOURS. A Series 
Familiar Essays on Scientific Subjec 
Natural Phenomena, etc. 1 vol., 12r 
Cloth. Price, $1.'75. 

An instructive and entertaining volume 
the student of science, and of astronomy. 

SPENCER (HERBERT). -E DUG 

TION, Intellectual, Moral, and Phj 
cal. 12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.25. " 

FIRST PRINCIPLES. 12mo. Clo 



Price, $2.50. 



CLASSIFICATION OF THE S( 



ENCES. 8vo. Paper. Price, 25 c 

— ESSAYS : Moral, Political, and ^ 
thetic. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Pri^ 
$2.50. 

— ILLUSTRATIONS OF UNIVE 
SAL PROGRESS. A Selection of 1 
best Papers. 1 vol., 12mo. CLoi 
Price, $2.50. 



— SOCIAL STATICS; or, the Cc 
ditions Essential to Humau Happing 
Specified, and the First of them Dev 
oped. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Pri( 

$2.50. 



- THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOG" 

vols., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $5.00, 



— THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHO 
OGY: Part L Data 'of Psycholog 
1 vol. Paper. Price, 75 cents; Pa 
II. The Inductions of Psycholog 
1 vol., 8vo. Paper. Price, 75 cent 
Part III. General Synthesis ; Part I' 
Special Synthesis. Paper. Pric 
$1.00; Part V. Physical Synthesi 
Paper. Price, 75 cents. 

— THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHO! 



OGY. Vol. L, 8vo. Cloth. Price, $2.5 
— WORKS. 7 vols., 8vo. Half Cal 



Price, $28.00. 
The works of Herbert Spencer have attaint 
a prominence and a reputation in Ameri( 
even greater than in England, and he stands tl 
acknowledged leader of a school of philosopl 
which counts many students and thinke: 
among his followers. 



ieitillc Piililicafions of D. AppletoD & Co. 



TYNDALL— HEAT as a mode of 

MOTION. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 

$2.00. 

OX SOUND : A Course of Eight 

Lectures delivered at the Royal Institu- 
tion of Great Britain. By John Tyn- 
dall, LL. D., F. R. S. Illustrated. 1 
vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $2.00. 

FRAGMENTS OF SCIENCE FOR 

UNSCIENTIFIC PEOPLE. A Series 
of Detached Essays, Lectures, and Re- 
views. r2mo. Cloth. Price, $2.00. 

LIGHT AND ELECTRICITY : 

Notes of Two Courses of Lectures be- 
fore the Royal Institution of Great 
Britain. 12mo. Cloth. Price, $L25. 

HOURS OF EXERCISE IN THE 

ALPS. With Illustrations. 12nio. 
Cloth. Price, $2.00. 

ON RADIATION. The "Rede" 

Lecture delivered in the Senate House 
before the University of Cambridge, 
England, on Tuesday, May IG, 1865. 
Author of " Heat considered as a Mode 
of Motion." 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. 
Price, 50 cents. 

Important works by one of England's great- 
est scientists. 



L.)— CLASS-BOOK OF 

New edition. 12mo. 



1 vol. 



YOUMANS (E. 

CHEMISTRY 
Price, $1.75. 

ATLAS OF CHEMISTRY. 

4to. Cloth. Price, $3.00. 
CHART OF CHEMISTRY, on Roll- 
er. Price, $8.00. 

HAND-BOOK OF HOUSEHOLD 

SCIENCE. 12mo. Price, $1.75. 

THE CULTURE DEMANDED BY 

MODERN LIFE: A Series of Address- 
es and Arguments on the Claims of 
Scientific Education. Edited, with an 
Introduction on Mental Discipline iii 
Education, by Edward L. Youmans, 
M. D. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 
$2.00. 
r- CORRELATION AND CONSER- 
VATION OF FORCES : A Series of 
Expositions by Prof. Grove, Prof Helni- 
holtz, Dr. Mayer, Dr. Faraday, Prof. 
Liebig, and Dr. Carpenter. Edited, 
with an Introduction and Brief Bio- 
graphical Notices of the Chief Promot- 
ers of the New Views, by Edward L. 
Youmans, M. D. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. 
Price, $2.00. 
The Atlantic MontMy says of Professor Yen- 
mans : "Hi? tune seems to be wholly devoted to 
the disiuterested service of scieuce and of his 
fellow-men." 



1>. Applefon & Co. have just piihlislied: 

HOW THE WORLD WAS PEOPLED, 

A TREATISE OX ETHNOLOGY. 

By tiac Kev. E]»WARI» FOl^TAIPVE, 

PROFESSOR OP TnEOLOGT AND NATtTEAL SCIENCE ; A irEMBEK OF THE NEW YORK mSTOKICAL 
SOCIETY, AND OF THE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE3 OF NEW OELEANS, BALTDIOKE, ETC. 

This learned, but simple and intelligible, book is the result of more than thirty years' careful 
study of ancient and modern history, and the archscology of all nations. By his independent re- 
searches in unexplored fields, aided by a thorough knowledge of geology, physical geography, and 
natural history, as far as those sciences have been matured by others, he has sncceedcd, he thinks, 
in so arranging incontrovertible facts as to settle satisfactorily the disputed question of the origin 
and antiquity of mankind. His researches have Tirougtit him to the conclusion of Alexander von 
Humboldt, and his brother William, that we are all the descendants of one originally creatal pair, 
as the Bible teaches. This places him in apposition to Sir Eoderick Mnrchison, Professor Agassiz, 
Mr Darwin and many other eminent naturalists. Mr. Fontaine's book will commend itself 
especially to students of theology, clerirymen of all churches, and the professors of colleges. 
Every argument heretofore advanced acrainst the biblical account of the origin of man is fairly 
stated, and even more strongly propounded than by its advocates. It is then replied to candidly 
and clearly, and, as the author thinks, conclusively. He seems to believe that no comprehensive 
and honest rcasoner can read the book carefully without coming to the conclusion that the Mosaic 
cosmo-ony is correct, and that the account given in Genesis of the origin of mankind is tnic. 



Scientific Piiicaliois of D. Appletoi & Co, 



DARWIN— THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES 
by Means of Natural Selection, or the 
Preservation of Favored Races in the 
Struggle for Life. New and revised 
edition, with Additions. With Copious 
Index. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 
$2.00. 

THE DESCENT OF MAN, and 

Selection in Relation to Sex. With 
many Illustrations. 2 vols., 12mo. 
Cloth. Price, $4.00. 

This work, in which the author expresses his 
peculiar viewf boldly and forcibly, has been 
widely read and criticised, and, whatever may 
be the opinion arrived at in regard to his theo- 
ries, the reader cannot fail to obtain pleasure 
and profit in its perusal. 



JOURNAL OF RESEARCHES mto 

the Natural History and Geology of the 
Countries visited during the Voyage of 
H. M. S. Beagle round the World. A 
new edition, uniform with " Origin of 
Species " and " Descent of Man. 1 vol., 
12mo. Cloth. Price, $2.00. 

An interesting account of a voyage of scien- 
tific researcli and discovery. 

HUXLEY— MAN'S PLACE IN NA- 
TURE. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 

$1.25. 

ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. 

1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.00. 

LAY SERMONS, Addresses, and 

Reviews. 1 vol., 12rao. Cloth. Price, 
$1.75. 

ELEMENTS OF PHYSIOLOGY, 

and Hygiene. By T. H. Huxley and 
W. J. Youmans. 1 vol., 12mo. $1.'75. 

MORE CRITICISMS ON DARWIN, 

and Administrative Nihilism. 1 vol., 
12ino. Price, 50 cents. 

Valuable to all who are interested in scientific 
study or reading. 

PROCTOR (R. A.)— OTHER worlds 

THAN OURS : the Plurality of Worlds, 
Studied under the Light of Recent Sci- 
entific Researches. By Richard A. 
Proctor, B. A., F. R. A. S., author of 
" Saturn and its System," " Sun Views 
of the Earth," " Half Hours with the 
Telescope," etc. With Illustrations, 
some colored. I2mo. Cloth. Price, 
$2.50. 



PROCTOR (R. A.)— LIGHT SCIENCE 
FOR LEISURE HOURS. A Series of 
Familiar Essays on Scientific Subjects, 
Natural Phenomena, etc. 1 vol., 12mo. 
Cloth. Price, $1.75. 

An instructive and entertaining volume to 
the Btudeut of science, and of astronomy. 

SPENCER (HERBERT).-educa. 

TION, Intellectual, Moral, and Physi- 
cal. 12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.25. " 

FIRST PRINCIPLES. 12mo. Cloth. 

Price, $2.50. 

CLASSIFICATION OF THE SCI- 
ENCES. 8vo. Paper. Price, 25 cts. 

ESSAYS : Moral, Political, and Es- 
thetic. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 
$2.50. 

ILLUSTRATIONS OF UNIVER- 
SAL PROGRESS. A Selection of his 
best Papers. 1 vol., 12mo. CLotb. 
Price, $2.50. 



— SOCIAL STATICS; or, the Con- 
ditions Essential to Human Happiness 
Specified, and the First of them Devel- 
oped. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 

$2.50. 



— THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY, 
2 vols., 12mo. Cloth. Price, $5.00. 



— THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOL- 
OGY : Part L Data 'of Psychology. 
1 vol. Paper. Price, 15 cents ; Part 
II. The Inductions of Psychology. 
1 vol., Svo. Paper. Price, 75 cents; 
Part III. General Synthesis ; Part IV. 
Special Synthesis. Paper. Price, 
$1.00; Part V. Physical Synthesis. 
Paper. Piice, 75 cents. 

— THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOL- 



OGY. Vol. I., 8vo. Cloth. Price, $2.50. 

WORKS. 7 vols., Svo. Half Calf. 

Price, $28.00. 

The works of Herbert Spencer have attained 
a prominence and a reputation in America 
even greater than in England, and he stands the 
acknowledged leader of a school of philosophy 
which counts many students and thinkers 
among his followers. 



Scientific Fiililicatiiiis of D. Apleli & Co. 



TYNDALL— HEAT as a mode of 

MOTION. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 
82.00. 

ON SOUND : A Course of Eight 

Lectures delivered at the Royal Institu- 
tion of Great Britain. By John Tyu- 
dall, LL. D., F. R. S. Illustrated. 1 
vol., 12mo. Cloth. Trice, $2.00. 

FRAGMENTS OF SCIENCE FOR 

UNSCIENTIFIC PEOPLE. A Series 
of Detached Essays. Lectures, and Re- 
views. 12mo. Cloth. Price, $2.00. 

LIGHT AND ELECTRICITY : 

Notes of Two Courses of Lectures be- 
fore the Royal Institution of Great 
Britain. 12mo. Cloth. Price, $1.25. 



— HOURS OF EXERCISE IN THE 
ALPS. With Illustrations. 12nio. 
Cloth. Price, $2.00. 

— ON RADIATION. The "Rede" 



Lecture delivered in the Senate House 
before the University of Cambridge, 
England, on Tuesday, May 10, 1805. 
Author of " Heat considered as a Mode 
of Motion." 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. 
Price, 50 cents. 

Important works by one of England's great- 
est scientists. 



YOUMANS (E. L.)— CLASS-BOOK OF 
CHEMISTRY. New edition. 12mo. 
Price, $1.75. 

ATLAS OF CHEMISTRY. 1 vol., 

4io. Cloth. Price, $.3.00. 
CHART OF CHEMISTRY, on Roll- 
er. Price, $8.00. 

HAND-BOOK OF HOUSEHOLD 

SCIENCE. 12mo. Price, $1.'75. 

THE CULTURE DEMANDED BY 

MODERN LIFE: A Series of Address- 
es and Arguments on the Claims of 
Scientific Education. Edited, with an 
Introduction on Mental Discipline in 
Education, by Edward L. Youmans, 
M. D. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. Price, 
$2.00. 
^CORRELATION AND CONSER- 
VATION OF FORCES : A Series of 
Expositions by Prof Grove, Prof Hclm- 
holtz. Dr. Mayer, Dr. Faraday, Prof. 
Licbig, and Dr. Carpenter. Edited, 
with an Introduction and Brief Bio- 
graphical Notices of the Chief Promot- 
ers of the New Views, by Edward L. 
Youmans, M. D. 1 vol., 12mo. Cloth. 
Price, $2.00. 
The Atlantic Monthly says of Professor You- 
mans : " His time seems to "be wholly devoted to 
the disinterested service of science and of his 
fellow-men."' 



D. Apjyletofi & Co. have just jyuMisJied: 

HOW THE WORLD WAS PEOPLED, 

A TREATISE OX ETHXCLOGY. 

By tlic Rev. E»^VARI> FO:^'TAINE, 

PEOFESSOr. OP TIIEOLOGT AND NATURAL SCIENCE ; A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK HISTOKICAL 
SOCIETY, AND OF TUB ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES OP NEW ORLEANS, BALTIMORE, ETC. 

This learned but simple and intelligible, book is the result of more than thirty years' careful 
study of ancient and modern hi^orv, and the archeology of all nations. By his independent re- 
searches in unexplored fields, aided by a thorough knowledge of geology, physical ireogrnphy, and 
natural bistor.v, as far as those sciences have been matured by others, he has succeeded, be Hunks, 
in so nrraniring incontrovertible facts as to settle satisfactorily the disputed question of the ongin 
and antiquity of mankind. His researches have brought him to the conclusion of Alexander von 
Humboldt, and his brother William, that we are all the descendants of one originally creatal pair, 
as the Bible teaches. This places him in opposition to Sir Koderick Murchison. Professor Agassiz 
Mr. Darwin, and many other eminent naturalists. Mr. Fontaine's book will commend itself 
especially to students of theolotry, clergymen of all churches, and the professors of colleges. 
Every argument heretofore advanced against the biblical account of the origin of man isfoiry 
stated, and even more strongly propounded than by its advocates. It is then replied to candidly 
and clearly, and, as the author thinks, conclusively. He seems to believe that «o comprel^nsive 
and honest reasoner can read the book carefully without coming to the conclusion that the Mosaic 
cosmogony is correct, and that the account given in Genesis of the origin of mankind is tnic. 



Sir HEN BY HOLLAND'S MECOLLECTIONS. 

RECOLLECTIONS OF PAST LIFE. 

By Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Bart. 
1 vol., 121110. Cloth, 350 pages. Price, $2. 

From the London Lancet. 
_" The ' Life of Sir Henry Holland ' is one to be recollected, and hg lias not erred in 
giving an outline of it to the public. In the very nature of things it is such a life as 
cannot often be repeated. Even if there were many men in the profession capable of 
living to tlie age of eighty-four, and then writing their life with fair hope of further 
travels, it is not reasonable to expect that there could ever be more than a very few 
lives so full of incidents worthy of being recorded autographically as the marvellous life 
which we are fresh from perusing. The combination of personal qualities and favorable 
opportunities in Sir Henry Holland's case is as rare as it is happy. But that is one rea- 
son for recording the history of it. Sir Henry's Ufe cannot be very closely imitated, but 
it may be closely studied. We have found the study of it, as recorded in the book just 
published, one of the most delightful pieces of recreation which we have enjoyed for 
many days Among his patients were pachas, princes, and premiers. Prince Al- 
bert, Napoleon III., Talleyrand, Pozzo di Borgo, Guizot, Palmella, Bulow, and Drouyn de 
Lhuys, Jefferson Davis, Lord Sidmouth, Lord Stowell, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston, 
Lord Aberdeen, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Lyndhurst, to say nothing of men of other note, 
were among hi§ patients." 

From the London Spectator. 
" We constantly find ourselves recalling the Poet Laureate's modernized Ulysses, the 
great wanderer, insatiate of new experiences, as we read the story of the octogenarian 
traveller and his many friends in many lands : 

* I am become a name ; 

For always roaming with a hungry heart. 

Much have I seen and known. Cities of men 

And manners, climates, councils, governments, 

Myself not least and honored of them all.' 
You see in this book all this and more than this — knowledge of the world, and insatiable 
thirst for more knowledge of it, great clearness of aim and exact appreciation of the 
mind's own wants, precise knowledge of the self-sacrifices needed to gratify those wants 
and a readiness for those sacrifices, a distinct adoption of an economy of life, and steady 
adherence to it from beginning to end — all of them characteristics which are but rare in 
this somewhat confused and hand-to-mouth world, and which certainly when combined 
make a unique study of character, however indirectly it may be presented to us and 
however little attention may be drawn to the interior of the picture." 

From the New York Times. 
" His memory was — is, we may say, for he is still alive and in possession of all his 
faculties — stored with recollections of the most eminent men and women of this century. 
He has known the intimate friends of Dr. Johnson. He travelled in Albania when All 
Pacha ruled, and has since then explored almost every part of the world, except the far 
East. He has made eight visits to this country, and at the age of eighty-two (in 1869) 
he was here again — the guest of Mr. Evarts, and, while in this city, of Mr. Thurlow 
Weed. Since then he has made a voyage to Jamaica and the West India Islands, and a 
second visit to Iceland. He was a friend of Sir Walter Scott, Lockhart, Dugald Stewart, 
Mme. de Stael, Byron, Moore, Campbell, Rogers, Crabbe, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Tal- 
leyrand, Sydney Smith, Macaulay, Hallam, Mackintosh, Malthus, Erskine, Humboldt, 
Sclilegel, Canova, Sir Humphry Davy, Joanna Baillie, Lord and Lady Holland, and many 
other distinguished persons whose names would occupy a column. In this country he 
has known, among other celebrated men, Edward Everett, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, 
Abraham Lincoln, Seward, etc. He was born the same year in which the United States 
Constitution was ratified. A life extending over such a period, and passed in the most 
active manner, in the midst of the best society which the world has to offer, must neces- 
sarily be full of singular interest ; and Sir Henry Holland has fortunately not waited 
until his memory lost its freshness before recalling some of the incidents in it." 



i.^^ 



^^<=^^ 



^% <^ 



^. v^' 



^^ ■% 



-.'i'^ -^ 






..-^^ 



,-^^' 






vOo. 






4^' 









^^/. v^^ 



,i^^ 



A^^-^ 



A^ 



